Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS AFTER PRAYERS

LONDON TRANSPORT BILL

Considered; to be read the Third time.

CHARING CROSS AND WESTMINSTER MEDICAL SCHOOL BILL [Lords]

Read a Second time and committed.

Oral Answers to Questions — EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

Teachers (Pay)

Mr. Hal Miller: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement on the teachers' pay dispute.

Sir David Price: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a further statement on the teachers' pay dispute.

The Secretary of State for Education and Science (Sir Keith Joseph): I very much regret the continued damage and disruption to pupils' education being caused by the teachers' strikes. As the House will know, at the request of the management panel, a meeting of the Burnham primary and secondary committee is to be held on Friday to seek agreement on terms under which the school teachers' pay dispute might be referred to arbitration. Throughout this pay round the Government's position has been that there can be no question of additional resources being made available to local authorities. No reference to arbitration or an arbitrator's award will change that position.

Mr. Miller: Does my right hon. Friend share my three regrets: that the teachers, unlike their Scottish colleagues, did not accept the 4·5 per cent.; that any additional money which they succeed in extracting can only be at the cost of jobs and services; and that those who have taken this so-called industrial action have shown just how far they are from being a profession?

Sir Keith Joseph: I agree with all my hon. Friend's regrets. I do not see what justification there was for the original action.

Sir David Price: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there are, as I detect, two distinct problems in this pay

dispute: the general level of teachers' salaries, and the pay structure of grades? Do I take it that the arbitrators will be able to offer advice on the latter as well as on the general level of pay settlement?

Sir Keith Joseph: That is not to be taken for granted. The terms of reference for an arbitrator remain to be agreed between the two sides of the Burnham committee.

Mr. Flannery: Is it not a fact that, although the Government in theory support strike actions as a sign of democracy, the only one they ever supported was in Poland? Have not the teachers had their Houghton pay award of 30 per cent., approved by the Labour Government in 1974, totally eroded? Although they are a group of the best behaved people in the country in terms of action—and I personally think that they should have taken it long ago—they have been driven to take it by this remorseless Government who are now causing more strikes throughout the country by their intransigence. Is it not about time that the Government paid the teachers their due and allowed the matter to go to arbitration?

Sir Keith Joseph: It is one thing to recognise, as the Government do, that people in a free society cannot be forced to work against their will, and thus to recognise that strikes will occur from time to time within the law, but it is quite another to support individual strikes, as the hon. Gentleman suggests. As for the idea that each group should return to its best year, as the hon. Gentleman suggests is right for teachers, it would be a recipe for endless leap-frogging, for an inflationary spiral and for more unemployment.

Mr. Madel: Did not Her Majesty's inspectors' recent report on local authority expenditure point out that better management of resources and a more coherent curriculum would improve teachers' pay and status? Should not teachers work towards that and abandon industrial action?

Sir Keith Joseph: I agree that there was evidence in the HMI annual report that the management of resources by local education authorities and the quality of teaching itself could substantially improve the effectiveness of education and the use of the vast sums of public money devoted to it.

Mr. Alton: Why was it right for the Government to urge arbitration on railway men and water workers, when it is not apparently right for teachers?

Sir Keith Joseph: In the teachers' world there is a limit to the amount of money available without eroding other parts of the education service, other parts of local authority services or placing an additional burden upon the ratepayers. That is why the Government have steadfastly maintained throughout the dispute that arbitration is not the answer.

Mr. Pawsey: Can my right hon. Friend confirm that since 1979 teachers' salaries have been ahead of inflation? They have risen by 71 per cent. as against a rise in the retail price index of 69 per cent. Can he further confirm that the average teacher's salary has doubled since 1978?

Sir Keith Joseph: Without accepting the precise figures given by my hon. Friend, I agree that his general thesis that teachers' pay has improved slightly in real terms since 1979 is valid.

Mr. Ashley: Is the Secretary of State aware that his refusal to pay for any possible arbitration award has two


consequences: first, to discredit the arbitration system; and, secondly, to damage the teaching profession by driving out able people and discouraging other able people from entering the profession?

Sir Keith Joseph: I do not accept either thesis. Arbritrators will need to take account of the fact that there is no more money available from the Government or local authorities.

Mr. Greenway: Does my right hon. Friend accept that the strikes are causing great damage to children and their education, whether or not they are in examination classes? Does he agree that it is desirable—indeed, essential—for teachers to move towards a no-strike agreement?

Sir Keith Joseph: I certainly agree that the teachers' deliberate action to disrupt schooling is immensely damaging to the children. I am not prepared to agree with my hon. Friend's second point. That would be a matter for negotiation between the two sides, if it were to be on the agenda.

Mr. Fatchett: Does the Secretary of State realise that in the city which both he and I represent 30,000 children yesterday had their education disrupted because of the industrial dispute? Given that the right hon. Gentleman is effectively saying no to arbitration, how does he intend to resolve the dispute and ensure that the children of Leeds obtain the education that they deserve?

Sir Keith Joseph: I do not accept that any blame for the disruption of children's education, be it in Leeds or elsewhere, falls on the Government. It is entirely the responsibility of the teachers.

Mr. Hunter: Is my right hon. Friend aware that many teachers have entered into industrial action reluctantly and with some misgiving? Will he take this opportunity once again unequivocably to assert that there will be future opportunities for those responsibly concerned with education to express their views in a wider education debate?

Sir Keith Joseph: If my hon. Friend means a debate in the House, that will be for the usual channels; but there is no lack of opportunity for responsible teachers, of whom there are very many, to express their views.

Mr. Radice: Does the Secretary of State understand that had he supported the decision to go to arbitration at the beginning of April the disruption of the past eight weeks would have been avoided? The truth is that his handling of the teachers' dispute has been insensitive, bumbling and highly damaging to the education of our children.

Sir Keith Joseph: The hon. Gentleman's rhetoric, which I hope he does not really believe, cannot hide the fact that the teachers have chosen deliberately to damage the education—the schooling—of children. I see no justification for the original action; I see absolutely no justification for its continuation now that the Burnham negotiating machinery is in play; and I see no justification whatsoever for any intensification of the action.

Schools (Collective Worship)

Sir John Biggs-Davison: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what representations he has received about the collective act of worship in schools; and what changes are contemplated.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Bob Dunn): My right hon. Friend has received a small number of representations suggesting that changes should be made in the statutory provisions on the collective act of worship in schools. The Government have no plans to propose any changes in those provisions.

Sir John Biggs-Davison: Does my hon. Friend agree that all the propaganda against school worship has come not from the non-Christian denominations but from unbelievers? While respecting all faiths, will the Government resist the adulteration of Christianity and uphold the law, which is being broken in many cases?

Mr. Dunn: My hon. Friend does the House a service by bringing this problem to our attention. We will uphold the provisions of the Education Act 1944, which require a daily act of worship and religious instruction to take place in our schools. I condemn the efforts of those who seek to take religion out of schools.

Mr. Latham: When my hon. Friend meets representatives of the education profession, does he take the opportunity to stress the fact that they have legal duties which are not enforced at present?

Mr. Dunn: On the many occasions when I meet those who represent education, I clearly point out their duty, both legal and moral, to see that religion plays a part in the life of the school. That is my view now, and it will continue to be my view for as long as I am a member of this place.

Education (Fees and Awards) Act 1983

Mr. Alton: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he is satisfied with the implementation of the Education (Fees and Awards) Act 1983.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Peter Brooke): Yes, Sir.

Mr. Alton: Is the Minister aware that some students have been placed in an invidious position because they have been told that they may be suspended from their studies? For others, there is the possibility that degrees or certificates will be withheld unless fees are paid. Is that an attitude with which the Government agree?

Mr. Brooke: The hon. Gentleman is probably aware that the institutions concerned have discretion in this matter.

"Training for Jobs"

Mr. Eastham: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement on the White Paper, "Training for Jobs."

Mr. Freud: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what discussions he has had with local authorities on the subject of his White Paper, "Training for Jobs."

Sir Keith Joseph: The Government are committed to introduce the new funding arrangements for non-advanced further education which were announced in the White Paper, "Training for Jobs". My right hon. Friend the


Secretary of State for Employment and I have discussed this matter on a number of occasions with representatives of the local authority associations.

Mr. Eastham: Is it not a fact that the Government intend to take away several hundred million pounds from colleges of education? Is it fair to expect the Manpower Services Commission to negotiate with the local authorities when Tory as well as Labour-controlled authorities completely reject the White Paper? Will the Secretary of State reconsider the whole situation and withdraw his White Paper?

Sir Keith Joseph: No. It is true that the local authority associations are still reluctant to accept the Government's decision, but the hon. Gentleman presents the facts wrongly. We are proposing not to take away hundreds of millions of pounds from non-advanced further education, but, in the first instance, to move the spending of £65 million from the decision of local authorities to the decision—preferably after consultation—of the MSC.

Mr. Freud: Bearing in mind what the Secretary of State has said, is this not yet another case of the Government treating local government with undeserved contempt?

Sir Keith Joseph: The hon. Gentleman is quite wrong in his use of the word "contempt". The Government formed a view, which has recently been reinforced by an HMI report, that not all non-advanced further education provision is as it should be. Much of it is excellent, but not all of it is. For that the employers take some responsibility. In a desire to improve its condition, the Government announced a decision by which they stand.

Mr. Haselhurst: Is not the plus point about the White Paper the fact that it is trying more exactly to measure preparation for work with available jobs? Ought we not to keep an open mind about the method by which we can best combine education and training to that purpose?

Sir Keith Joseph: Yes; my hon. Friend is right. The Government are trying to identify the latent demands for skills without falling into the trap of manpower planning.

Mr. Sheerman: Is the Secretary of State aware that his White Paper continues to provoke conflict and confrontation between the Government, trade unions, local authorities and the Manpower Services Commission? Given the right hon. Gentleman's known interest in standards, would it not be in the interests of non-advanced further education for him to reconsider and rally to the standard raised by the right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire, South-East (Mr. Pym) this weekend and move in the direction of what are described as the traditional Tory values of compromise and conciliation?

Sir Keith Joseph: There is an immense amount of common ground between local authorities, college authorities, the MSC and the trade unions. We all want more effective non-advanced further education. The question is whether the Government's proposed method, in alliance with local authorities, will make improvements relatively quickly. We think that it can and will.

Teachers (Pay)

Mr. Beith: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what meetings he has had with the teaching unions concerning the teachers' pay dispute.

Sir Keith Joseph: Following my announcement in the House on 15 May that I stood ready to meet the teachers unions, only the National Association of Head Teachers asked to see me, and I met it on 7 June.

Mr. Beith: Is not the unanimity of the sometimes divided teacher unions a clear demonstration that throughout the teaching profession there is deep dissatisfaction at how the dispute has been handled and a clear willingness for what in almost every other context is regarded as proper—arbitration?

Sir Keith Joseph: The House will have to decide whether it regards any member of the so-called alliance as an expert on unanimity. I do not think that the hon. Gentleman advances the argument by his question.

Mrs. Rumbold: Has my right hon. Friend had further thoughts about the possibility of unifying the two bodies that deal with the teaching profession in regard to pay and conditions of work? He will be aware that they are separated at the moment. Does he think that it would be better if they were united?

Sir Keith Joseph: I am still ready to be convinced that that would lead to improvement, but I remain sceptical about changing the machinery, which would still require the good will of both sides to enhance the prospect of progress.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: Why should a teacher settle for anything less than a policeman? Is his contribution to society any less or any more?

Sir Keith Joseph: Or, for that matter, anyone else. The idea that pay can be settled in a free society by equality for all, or some vision of social justice, is a recipe for endless leap-frogging — [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman has asked a question and he should allow me to answer it. It is a recipe for endless leap-frogging, an inflationary spiral and—which the whole House would regret—increase after increase in unemployment.

Mr. Rowe: If my right hon. Friend meets the teachers' unions, will he consider discussing with them the possibility of their departing from their age-old preoccupation with every teacher on the same grade getting the same pay and seriously examine paying teachers according to merit?

Mr. Flannery: Silly boy.

Sir Keith Joseph: Far from my hon. Friend being a silly boy, he is entirely right, and I am delighted to tell him that the teachers' unions seem to think the same because, despite the dispute, they have honourably continued to negotiate for just such a possibility of structural change in teachers' pay as my hon. Friend wishes to bring about.

Mr. Radice: Will the Government, at Friday's meeting, support the employers' decision of last Monday to go to arbitration? The Secretary of State says that there is no money. What about the unallocated local government money and the Contingencies Fund?

Sir Keith Joseph: The hon. Gentleman will not expect me to reveal the Government's instructions to their representatives on Burnham. As for his rhetorical questions, there are many claims on the Contingencies Reserve. The unallocated margin is to meet the gap between the proper level of expenditure by local authorities, as seen by the Government, and their efforts to bring down the present rate of spending to that level.

Schools (Parental Influence)

Sir William van Straubenzee: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science how long after 1 October 1984 he anticipates introducing legislation to implement proposals in his Green Paper, "Parental Influence at School".

Sir Keith Joseph: When the Government have considered responses to the proposals, they intend to proceed to legislation as soon as a suitable opportunity arises.

Sir William van Straubenzee: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that informative reply. Does he appreciate that there is a big head of steam of support behind and around him for increasingly harnessing the interest and concern of parents to help him in his outstanding drive to raise standards, an aim which is very dear to the vast majority of parents?

Sir Keith Joseph: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for those comments. I thought that a "but" was coming at the end. I was glad to hear his words.

Mr. Loyden: If the Secretary of State is committed to the idea of parental influence, why has he ignored the approaches made by the Liverpool area school parents' association on the question of secondary reorganisation and the fact that the policy of the Labour party has been confirmed by parents at the last two elections.

Sir Keith Joseph: I do not think that that has anything to do with the main question.

Dr. Hampson: Is my right hon. Friend aware that it is about seven years since a working party group on policy decided that there was far too much abuse of politically appointed governors and recommended that the majority of school governors should be chosen from among parents? Is it not a matter of urgency that we should proceed with that recommendation?

Sir Keith Joseph: I am grateful for the reminder by my hon. Friend that I am on the party line in this case. We are going through a serious, necessarily slightly longer than usual, process of consultation so that we may be sure of understanding all the implications of what we intend to do.

Mr. Freud: Will the Secretary of State assure the House that there will be no paving legislation by which, in the interim, democratically elected parent governors will be appointed until they can be re-elected?

Sir Keith Joseph: The hon. Gentleman puts ideas into my head.

Mr. Beaumont-Dark: Does my right hon. Friend agree that most parents are against all the changes that are being suggested in the education curriculum, and are more concerned that their children should be taught to read, write and add up, instead of schools going in for some other cock-eyed system that would again mess up the whole education curriculum? Can we concentrate on that kind of parental influence instead of experimenting?

Sir Keith Joseph: Without universally condemning every single change that might be accepted, I agree that the influence of parents will probably be used for a wise conservatism.

Adult Education

Mr. Willie W. Hamilton: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he intends to take any new initiatives to increase opportunities for adult education with particular reference to the Open University and the Workers' Educational Association.

Mr. Brooke: We have taken a number of recent initiatives to improve opportunities for adult education, including the expansion of the PICKUP programme for developing vocational updating, launching a programme to develop educational opportunities for the adult unemployed, the increase in grant to the adult literacy and basic skills unit, and financing an adult continuing education development unit within the National Institute of Adult Continuing Education. In addition, we have agreed in principle to fund the Workers' Educational Association's proposals for tutor training. We are continuing to support the Open University's undergraduate programme, and are encouraging the university to expand its continuing education programme.

Mr. Hamilton: How does the hon. Gentleman square that answer with the fact that in the past four years the Open University's fees have doubled and that it is proposed to reduce public expenditure on adult education from £91 million to £80 million in the next three years? The Government repeatedly say that there is no more public money available to spend, so how have they managed to find more than £2,000 million to spend on a few hundred people in the Falkland Islands during the next three years?

Mr. Brooke: The hon. Gentleman has asked me several questions. I can square my answer with the hon. Gentleman's assertions, because I answered the question that he asked me to answer. The hon. Gentleman asked me about the rise in the Open University's fees. In the current year they constitute 13 per cent. of the income derived from fees and Government grant combined. There is an element of comparing apples with pears when looking at the fall from £91 million to £80 million, since there is an unallocated margin for the local authorities of £660 million in the current year, some of which I expect to be spent on adult education.

Mr. Rhodes James: Does my hon. Friend realise that the Open University represents one of the most remarkable developments in recent years? Will he pay particular attention to its concerns and its future?

Mr. Brooke: I am happy to respond to that question. I had the pleasure of seeing the vice-chancellor only last week, and I am delighted to be in frequent contact with him.

Mr. Wilson: Although I am gratified by the Minister's last answer, will he bear in mind that there is real concern in Scotland about the restriction of the Open University's role? That university offers a remarkable opportunity for adult education, and I think that both sides of the House would be grateful if the hon. Gentleman would reconsider how it could be expanded and developed for the benefit of our population.

Mr. Brooke: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has asked the Open University visiting committee to


play a part in identifying and appraising the various options open to the university. They will be discussed in the coming months.

Mr. Stanbrook: Why has the adult education movement not been harnessed to assist the youth training scheme?

Mr. Brooke: That is an interesting question for which, I must confess, I am not fully prepared. However, I shall write to my hon. Friend.

Mr. Bell: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that there is serious concern on Teesside about the future of a day release course for steel workers and another course on child development? Does he realise that that concern stems from the Government's cut over three years of 14·3 per cent. in adult education? What assurances can he give that adult education choice on Teesside will not be severely limited?

Mr. Brooke: I do not immediately recognise the figure of 14·3 per cent., but I suspect that it is a reference to the extra-mural departments, which are not the subject of this question.

Mr. Cormack: Why cannot the Department come up with a slightly more felicitous phrase than "PICKUP scheme", and what does it mean, anyway?

Mr. Brooke: I sympathise with my hon. Friend's point. Like so many such words, PICKUP is an acronym and stands for "professional, industrial and commercial updating".

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Has the hon. Gentleman persuaded the Secretary of State to visit the Open University? Is he now prepared to pay tribute to its work, particularly in science and technology training? Have there been any discussions with the Workers' Educational Association about payments to those with an organising role as opposed to merely the provision of teaching?

Mr. Brooke: I have discussed with my right hon. Friend the pleasure that I have derived from visiting the Open University. I have received another invitation to visit a summer school during the coming year. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has made it clear that the Open University's invitation is still open. There are certain things involving the visiting committee that lie ahead of us.

Assisted Places Scheme

Mr. Chapman: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement on the number of pupils taking up the assisted places scheme.

Mr. Dunn: In the current academic year, the third year of the scheme, there are more than 13,000 places in England.

Mr. Chapman: I welcome the purpose of the scheme, which is to widen opportunities for at least some children from less well-off families. What is the average cost per pupil working out at? Does that not have to be compared with the average cost of educating somebody in the state secondary system?

Mr. Dunn: I am happy to tell my hon. Friend that the cost to the Department per assisted pupil is not very much different from the average unit cost in maintained secondary schools.

Mr. Flannery: Is it not a fact that large numbers of private schools are dependent on this public money? Whereas most people think that there are only one or two assisted students in private schools using public money, there are, in fact, many of them. Is not this money being taken away from the state system of education, which needs it urgently?

Mr. Dunn: The hon. Gentleman is right to draw the attention of the House to the uptake of places. On his general thesis, he is wrong now, as he has been wrong in the past, and I dare say he will be wrong again in the future.

Mr. Tracey: Will my hon. Friend cast his mind back to the words spoken to him by working-class parents who met him a few months ago, whose children are now benefiting from the assisted places scheme? Will he continue to strive for more money for this excellent scheme?

Mr. Dunn: I can give no undertaking on the latter point, but in the 1983–84 school year, 40 per cent. of the assisted places attracted the full fee remission and nearly 75 per cent. of the places went to pupils from families with below average incomes. That is a fact of which the House should be proud.

Mr. Freud: Will the Minister consider giving a new name to those schools in the private sector that will have more than 50 per cent. of their pupils paid for out of public funds?

Mr. Dunn: No, Sir.

Mr. Dickens: Is it not a fact that the assisted places scheme provides a ladder of opportunity for children from disadvantaged homes whose parents cannot afford a college of excellence, and that these are the very children whom the Opposition pretend to support?

Mr. Dunn: My hon. Friend is right in his interpretation. A great deal of humbug is talked by Opposition Members when they wish to exercise their right to choose schools for their children, but deny the same right to other people.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: Over the next few months, will my hon. Friend consider extending the assisted places scheme to children of average and below average ability, who will probably benefit as much from having a choice of the independent schools as those of above average ability?

Mr. Dunn: I welcome my hon. Friend's suggestion, but the Department has no plans to take such points of view into account at the moment.

Youth Service

Mr. Lawler: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he is now in a position to announce his conclusions on the recommendations in the Thompson report on the youth service about providing for a statutory basis for the youth service and the establishment of a National Youth Advisory Council.

Mr. Brooke: My right hon. Friend expects consideration of the outstanding recommendations in the report of the review group on the youth service, including those on legislation and on an advisory council, to be completed in time for a Government response very shortly.

Mr. Lawler: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Does he appreciate the uncertainty caused by the Government's long delay in issuing a response both to the outstanding recommendations of the Thompson report and the Cockerill report? Is he aware that this uncertainty is felt by those involved in the youth service and is having an effect on planning in the National Youth Bureau, where there is a certain amount of demoralisation among the staff? Therefore, will my hon. Friend hasten the Government's response?

Mr. Brooke: I take my hon. Friend's comment about uncertainty, but if a week is a long time in politics, a month is a hiccup in history. I hope that the time that we are taking on investigation will lead to the right answers coming through. As to the National Youth Bureau, the framing of a comprehensive response to the report will need to take account of the Government's response to the youth service report. Consideration is being given to the report on the bureau.

Mr. Sheerman: Is the Minister aware that during the period of almost two years when his Department has been sitting on the report, all its recommendations have been a lowest common denominator for the youth service? Is he aware that at this time, when 1·25 million young people under 25 are unemployed, the needs and demands for a youth service are greater than ever? Further, is he aware that next year is the international year of youth? Perhaps his Government will not be very interested in that, because the themes of that year are peace, participation and democracy.

Mr. Brooke: It is not wholly correct to say that the Government have been sitting on the report for two years, as there was a substantial consultation period, and this Government believe in consultation. As to the hon. Member's question about the international youth year, I hestitate to correct him, but the third objective is development and not democracy.

Mr. Haselhurst: Can my hon. Friend say how many young people have grown old since the proposals that Thompson reiterates first saw the light of day and were ignored by previous Governments? Can he resolve to be the first Minister in history to come to the House with positive proposals in this respect?

Mr. Brooke: I know the part that my hon. Friend has played in this process in the past. He looks so youthful himself that he is a tribute to his own stamina in this regard.

Teachers (Pay)

Mr. Yeo: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what representations he has had from parents on the subject of teachers' pay.

Sir Keith Joseph: Since the beginning of the current dispute I have received about 50 letters from parents.

Mr. Yeo: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, apart from the schoolchildren themselves, the groups that are most severely affected by the teachers' strike are single parents and working mothers? Does he agree also that in this instance, as in so many others, the effects of a strike and, indirectly, of trade union action, are to hit at the most disadvantaged groups in society?

Sir Keith Joseph: Yes, Sir. I say again that I do not see any justification for what the teachers have done and are doing in this dispute.

Mr. Holt: Can my right hon. Friend say what he has heard from parents, not only on teachers' pay, but on the performance of teachers in being able to teach their children the basic reading, writing and arithmetic necessary to enable them to earn a living later, as opposed to the current system under which children have peace studies and other nonsense put into their heads?

Sir Keith Joseph: That is a different question and I do not have the answer available. There is a great deal of satisfaction among parents with many schools and there is also a lot of dissatisfaction, not all of which results in letters.

Mr. Madden: If a majority of teachers were to vote in a ballot for the pay award to go to arbitration, what influence would that exert on the Secretary of State?

Sir Keith Joseph: We have had a lot of questions on that, but that does not arise on this question.

Mr. Colvin: Is my right hon. Friend also aware that parents are very worried about the disruption to examinations caused by the teachers' dispute, especially in my constituency, where Hampshire schoolchildren are having it taken out on them by teachers simply because the chairman of the employers' side of Burnham happens to be the chairman of the local education authority? What guidelines will my right hon. Friend's Department give to examiners dealing with examinations taken during the period of the dispute?

Sir Keith Joseph: This is another example of the unjustified nature of the teachers' action. As for young people who feel that they have suffered during an examination process from some external cause, it is open to them to write to the examining body.

Mr. Skinner: How can the Minister justify refusing the teachers the opportunity to get a decent pay award when only a few days ago this same Government decided to appoint a top civil servant at £75,000 a year? If they can find money for top civil servants at that wage, why can they not pay teachers a decent wage as well?

Sir Keith Joseph: The hon. Gentleman missed the long session that we have had during this Question Time on teachers' pay. This question is about letters from parents on the subject.

Mr. Peter Bruinvels: Have the 50 or so parents, in the representations that my right hon. Friend has received, expressed grave concern over the future of their children's examination results? Does he condemn the action of the teachers, which is endangering good examination results throughout the country?

Sir Keith Joseph: I do not have an analysis of the contents of each of the 50 letters, but I know that there is widespread anxiety among parents.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Does the Secretary of State accept that many parents have every sympathy with the teachers and believe that the trouble with the dispute is that it is clearly the Government's responsibility and that they should have offered more money earlier? Had the Government offered a little more money they could have


settled the dispute long ago and saved all the disruption in schools. Is the Secretary of State demanding total surrender from teachers?

Sir Keith Joseph: If the hon. Gentleman is correct, those parents share with him and, apparently, with all Members of the Opposition, an indifference to the consequences that would follow, which are higher inflation and higher unemployment.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRIME MINISTER

Engagements

Mr. Hayes: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 19 June.

The Prime Minister (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher): This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House I shall be having further meetings later today. This evening I am holding a dinner at No. 10 to mark the centenary of the NSPCC.

Mr. Hayes: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the vast majority of the British people, never mind their political persuasions, are deeply shocked at the ugly scenes of violence on the picket line at Orgreave? Does she agree that that behaviour is representative, not of the true tradition of British trade union lawful picketing, but of the rule of the mob? Will my right hon. Friend take the opportunity to praise the British police for their courage and dedication and for their discipline in combating a difficult situation?

The Prime Minister: I agree with my hon. Friend that the scenes at Orgreave yesterday had nothing to do with peaceful picketing, either under the law or under the rules laid down several years ago by the TUC. However serious the strike — and it is serious — the consequences of giving in to mob rule would be far graver. Thanks to the courage of the police, yesterday's attempt failed. I agree with my hon. Friend that the law must be, and will continue to be, upheld.

Mr. Kinnock: Does the Prime Minister realise that, if she were to make an effective and helpful intervention in the dispute, she would not be giving in to mob rule or anything like that, but would merely be fulfilling her responsibilities as Prime Minister of this country? Her absolutism, as her right hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire, South-East (Mr. Pym) would put it, has brought us Britain's first billion pound industrial dispute. It has brought violent conflict on a scale that has virtually been unknown in this country, certainly for the past 50 years or more. Will the Prime Minister tell us why she wants this chaos, conflict and cost to go on rising?

The Prime Minister: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman could forthrightly and unequivocally condemn the scenes that took place outside Orgreave yesterday. He has made no attempt to do so. He knows full well that what we saw there was not peaceful picketing, but mob violence and intimidation. I am astonished that he should suggest that, because one faction of the National Union of Mineworkers adopts these disgraceful tactics, it should be given what it wants. If we were to do that, we would lose in two ways. First, we would be asking the National Coal Board to adopt a policy which would destroy the prospects

of an efficient industry; and, secondly, we would be accepting that violence and intimidation are an acceptable part of industrial relations. I challenge the right hon. Gentleman: will he condemn those scenes of violence outside Orgreave?

Mr. Kinnock: That is no challenge at all. I have repeatedly, in spite of the Prime Minister's continual fiction, condemned without reservation the use of violence by any and all parties in industrial disputes. It is about time, and I appeal for the fourth or fifth time in the past 15 weeks to the Prime Minister, to concentrate on the real issues and stop treating the dispute like a political football.
I further say this to the Prime Minister, since she asks me about the National Coal Board. Does she not appreciate that there is still a strong basis for a negotiated settlement and that the National Coal Board and its leadership have made an agreement on two vital areas of the future of the coal mining industry? I ask the right hon. Lady now to stop being preoccupied with the horrific but nevertheless indirect consequences of the strike, to concentrate on the sources of the strike and the future of the coal mining industry, and to use her influence, just for once, to sponsor a speedy settlement to the dispute and to get the parties back to the negotiating table. If the right hon. Lady expended a fraction of the energy that she gives to political posturing on trying to promote a settlement, we would have ended the strike by now.

The Prime Minister: I note that the right hon. Gentleman referred to mob rule as political posturing. I can say to him only that whatever Government are answering from the Dispatch Box, if they gave in to mob rule, that would be the end of liberty and democracy. I remind the right hon. Gentleman that at present 43 pits are working normally and 12 partially in a number of National Coal Board areas. In other words, some 50,000 miners are working. I note that the right hon. Gentleman is against the miners who are working. He knows full well that the Government have carried out their task of seeing that the law is upheld, that there is an abundant supply of money for investment in profitable pits, and that those who take voluntary redundancy have an excellent deal.
For example, in 1979, when the right hon. Gentleman's Government were in power, a 49-year-old miner opting for voluntary redundancy would have received a capital sum of £1,450, whereas now he would receive £33,000. The facts are known. This Government have given a better deal to the mining industry than any other, and a better future. I hope that one day the right hon. Gentleman will urge people to obey the rules of the TUC on peaceful picketing and that he will have some regard for the 50,000 miners who are working.

Mr. Kinnock: That was not an answer; it was a recitation of arrogant complacency, an evasion, and a betrayal of the national interest. [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Mr. Tony Favell, Question No. 2.

The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman, who is shouting and posturing, is more accustomed to it than I am. We have seen violence which he has not —[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. There is so much noise that the Prime Minister did not hear that I called Question No 2.

Mr. Favell: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 19 June.

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Favell: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, if there was conflict between the police and miners yesterday, that was precisely what those masterminding the strike had intended from the outset? These people have shown no respect for democracy, either inside or outside their union, and have never ceased to take any opportunity to incite people to show the utmost disregard for the police. As a result, young policemen have had to endure taunts and jibes——

Mr. Speaker: Briefly.

Mr. Favell: —and bricks and spit.

The Prime Minister: I agree with my hon. Friend. The fact is that these violent tactics have been used to try to impose the will of one faction of the NUM on the rest. Those people have tried, by those tactics, to destroy the steel industry. They have failed. They have tried, by those tactics, to disrupt the power stations. They have failed. They have tried, by those tactics, to destroy those who are still going into work in the many pits around the country. They have failed. In every single way, they have tried to use violence to impose their will. So far they have failed. The lorries got through; the coal is getting through. I hope that that will continue, as I hope that the overwhelming majority of workers in this country will join all people of good will to see that mob violence does not prevail.

Mr. Steel: Why does the Prime Minister not remind the country that the civil law is there to be used against secondary picketing? Secondly, why does she not give some encouragement to miners who deplore their leader's tactics by persuading the Secretary of State for Energy to call both sides together under his chairmanship to ascertain whether there is a way forward, rather than leaving the issue as though it were a private television battle between Mr. MacGregor and Mr. Scargill?

The Prime Minister: The facts are well known. The fact that the Government have given a better deal to the mining industry than any other previous Government is well known. The fact that the offer has been taken up by 50,000 miners is also well known. The House knows that 50,000 miners are working and are continuing to work —[Interruption.] Hon. Gentlemen who are interrupting from a sedentary position cannot give any example where any other Government have given a better deal to the miners. It is up to those who could use the civil law—that is those who are aggrieved—to go to the courts to use it if they choose. That is a matter for them and not for the Government.

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: Is my right hon. Friend concerned at the development of ballistic missile defence systems in space by the United States and the Soviet Union? Such systems weaken the stability of nuclear deterrents. Will she use the London summit declaration on East-West relations to press for a negotiated end to such developments?

The Prime Minister: That is one very early experiment. It is far too early to deduce anything for future prospects from one experiment with infra-red heat sensors used against one target in the skies. It cannot be assumed

that that can rapidly be transferred by technology into a mass capability to stop every missile going into space. For as long as we can foresee it will be necessary to have a strong nuclear deterrent, and Trident will be that deterrent in future.

Mr. Simon Hughes: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 19 June.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Hughes: Now that one out of five of the electorate has voted—[Interruption.] Now that one out of five of the electorate has voted for the alliance parties, will the Prime Minister—[Interruption.] Will the Prime Minister—if there were some quiet the right hon. Lady might be able to hear my supplementary question—justify to the House, to the millions of electors and to the other nine democratic members of the European Community how, in spite of the alliance gaining what amounted to 20 per cent. of the votes cast, there will not be one alliance Member out of the 81 Members of the European Parliament for the next five years? How will she justify that distortion of democracy?

The Prime Minister: That is quite simply because no alliance candidate won the constituency which he sought to represent.

Mr. Onslow: May I revert to the disorders at Orgreave and elsewhere? As it must be clear that these unlawful assemblies are neither spontaneous nor unco-ordinated, how long is it likely to be before the police have sufficient evidence to bring criminal charges against those responsible for controlling and directing these riotous mobs?

The Prime Minister: As my hon. Friend knows, there have been a number of arrests on all of the violent pickets. I do not know whether the police will have sufficient evidence to bring the sort of charge to which my hon. Friend has referred. As he knows, it is a matter for the police and it would be quite wrong for politicians to interfere in duties for which the police are responsible.

Mr. Redmond: Will the Prime Minister inform the House when she has sufficient blood on her hands to satisfy her hatred of the miners?

The Prime Minister: As I said, in 43 pits 50,000 miners are working and looking after their families. The hon. Gentleman seems to disregard those completely. They have accepted the offers and look forward to a prosperous future for the coal industry. Those who brought the miners out on strike are responsible for ending the strike. They now have fewer prospects and have damaged the coal industry considerably.

Mr. Forth: Although the Prime Minister is entitled to feel satisfied about the Conservatives winning 44 of the 78 mainland seats in the European Parliament elections, does she agree that we should be grateful that we do not have proportional representation, which has allowed the far Right National Front to be elected in France?

The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir. A proportional system of election often allows extremists to be elected.

Coal Industry Dispute

Dr. David Owen: (by private notice) asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement about what measures the Government intend taking to prevent a repeat of the violence and public disorder that happened yesterday in connection with the industrial dispute in the mining industry.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Leon Brittan): The violence yesterday was concentrated at the Orgreave coking plant. The police estimate that at nine o'clock yesterday morning some 10,000 people were in the vicinity. They were there to stop the British Steel Corporation from exercising its lawful right to remove coke from the plant. The police were subjected to a considerable level of violence, and to deal with it found it necessary to use both mounted officers and officers equipped with shields and helmets. Ninety-three arrests were made. Of those arrested, 26 have since been charged with riot. The remainder have been charged with unlawful assembly, assault and public order offences. Twenty-eight police officers suffered injuries. The disorder, during which large numbers of missiles were thrown at police officers, continued until after mid-day. Apart from the physical violence, a field close to the lines of police officers was set on fire and three vehicles were removed from a local yard and set on fire. A car filled with rubble was pushed down a hill towards the lines of police officers. Fortunately, it merely hit a wall. A barrier was erected in the road and set on fire.
In spite of the large numbers of people present and the violence which arose, the police were able to ensure that the vehicles due to go into and out of the plant were able to do so as required.
With regard to the possible repetition of events of this kind, no Government can guarantee that violence will not recur if there are people who are determined to resort to it. The Government can and must give the police the support that is needed in their difficult task of preventing and containing violence, and dealing with it when it arises. The Government have done that and will continue to do so. The Government must also ensure that the law relating to public order is adequate and that the courts haze proper powers to deal with offences against it. For the most part the provisions of the criminal law relating to such offences as obstruction, intimidation, criminal damage and riot are adequate, and the courts' powers very substantial. I do not believe that there is a need for major changes in this area although, as the House will know, that is a matter we have under review. What there is need for now is unequivocal and unanimous condemnation of the use of violence as a means of securing political or industrial objectives; and full support for those who are determined to ensure that violence shall not prevail.

Dr. Owen: Is the Home Secretary aware that the public mood is one of increasing frustration and fed-upness at seeing the police force subjected night after night to such a degree of violence and battering on our behalf? Does he agree that it is not altogether surprising that last night one or two people under great provocation acted in a way that will probably need to be inquired into and may require disciplinary proceedings?
The major question, however, is this. Why are the police being used in this way outside that coking plant? Secondary action is taking place, but no action has been taken under the civil law to prevent mass picketing by thousands of people night after night, when the TUC code of conduct provides for six people on a picket. Is it not time that the Home Secretary took action? The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry said outside the House today that the Government had no view on whether they wished the civil law to be invoked. Why, then, did the Secretary of State for Transport advise Mr. Reid on 2 April to avoid an approach to the Attorney-General's office?
The fact is that the Government have indeed taken a view. They have decided that they do not wish the BSC or the NUR to invoke the civil law. It is time that they told the House why they take that view and it is time for some of us to tell them that they should no longer take that view and that the BSC should stop the secondary picketing outside that coking plant tomorrow.

Mr. Brittan: The right hon. Gentleman's assessment of the public mood is not one from which I would substantially differ. Seeing the pressure under which the police are being put by the criminal acts that have occurred, the public are bound to feel sickened that that should happen in our country today and to wish to express strong support for the police in their response to that violence.
On the use of civil action, I cannot accept many of the right hon. Gentleman's assumptions, which were largely assertions without proof or demonstration, but I will say this. If those responsible for determining whether civil action should be taken—that is, the public or private bodies affected by what is going on—wish to resort to the civil courts, the Government do not seek in any way to stand in their way.

Sir Edward Gardner: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the only law that is likely to deter people who are out to commit acts of violence of the kind that took place yesterday is the criminal law and that that is the law that must now be made to deal with what happened yesterday? Does he agree that if people are so criminally minded that they will not even take notice of the criminal law, they are most unlikely to take any notice of the civil law?

Mr. Brittan: My hon. and learned Friend is entirely right to stress the primacy of the criminal law in dealing with acts of violence. The considerations that he brought to bear are highly relevant to the question of when the civil law should be used, although in appropriate circumstances it undoubtedly has an important role to play.

Mr. Gerald Kaufman: An inquiry has been announced into yesterday's horrifying events, and Mr. Tony Clement, assistant chief constable of south Yorkshire, has emphasised that only a small number at most could have been criminally involved. Why has the Home Secretary one-sidedly anticipated the outcome of that inquiry? Will he admit that the police force have been pitchforked against their will into an intolerable situation that the the nation is sick at heart at having to witness? As Mr. Tony Clement rightly complains, the police have become the "jam in the sandwich".
The Prime Minister today admitted that the Government are using the police to enforce the civil law.


[HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Yes, she did. She should have the humility to ask herself why it is under her premiership that the nation has been forced to witness scenes unprecedented in an industrial dispute. The present dispute has cost the taxpayer £1 billion. The Prime Minister's face is not worth that amount of money. Nor is it worth the confrontation that her intransigence has deliberately engineered and manipulated. She should stop exploiting the police as scapegoats. The public expect her to accept her responsibilities, to recognise the strength and validity of the miners' case and in the public interest to help to bring the parties together so as to bring this costly dispute to an end.

Mr. Brittan: The right hon. Gentleman has subjected the House to a characteristic farrago of distortion. As to the inquiry of which he made so much, and which he had the effrontery to accuse me of pre-empting, that is the chief constable's inquiry into the limited point of establishing the identity of the officer concerned and the facts of a particular case. I made no reference in my statement to allegations against the police or to the outcome. Therefore, I cannot begin to think how it can conceivably be said that I have pre-empted that inquiry.
The right hon. Gentleman then continued on his journey through mischievous fantasy by accusing my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister of calling on the police to enforce the civil law. Nothing that she said can conceivably bear that interpretation. It is perfectly clear that the task of the police is to enforce the rule of law, to prevent crime and to deal with it as and when it arises. Of course they are placed in an invidious and difficult position, and they deserve the sympathy of the House rather than the right hon. Gentleman's crocodile tears, which carry no conviction.
As to bringing the parties together, the right hon. Gentleman might like to reflect on the fact that at present the coalmining industry receives a subsidy of £1·3 billion a year. It is common knowledge to anyone with the faintest knowledge of the industry that there are uneconomic pits, and given that the leader of the NUM absolutely refuses to contemplate, discuss or consider in any way the closure of even the most uneconomic pits, what the right hon. Gentleman calls for carries no credence whatever.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that what the police most resent is not the sticks, stones and bottles thrown at them from the picket line but the verbal stabs in the back that they are receiving from some hon. Members? Will he therefore repudiate the notion that somehow the police are involved in political or paramilitary policing, when all they seek to do is to uphold the law of Parliament? Will he also tell the Leader of the Opposition that there is no equivalence in the notion that illegal force used to stop men from going to work if they wish is virtually the same as the use by the police of whatever lawful force is required to uphold the law and the civil liberties of our people?

Mr. Brittan: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. He is quite right. In no way are the police involved in political activity. They are involved in handling matters which lead to breaches of the criminal law, which is part of the law of the land, has been for many years and is quite unrelated to politics in any shape or form.

Mr. Merlyn Rees: Is the Home Secretary aware that I can easily respond to his request that there should be a complete denunciation of violence from wherever it comes? However, coming from a Government that is not enough. In recent days I have felt that there is an analogy with Northern Ireland in 1969, when young people were frustrated, not merely about pay and so on. At that time the Government in Northern Ireland did not understand the problems that those people faced, and violence erupted.
It is not enough to ask us to condemn. That can easily be done. I ask that the Government of whom the right hon. and learned Gentleman is a member should not treat coal miners as if they did not matter. They should not keep on saying how much money has been given to subsidies the coal industry. Instead, their attitude should be one of conciliation and understanding, because without that we in Great Britain will go down the royal road which Northern Ireland went down in 1969.

Mr. Brittan: The right hon. Gentleman's unequivocal condemnation of violence is as welcome as it was expected. I do not recognise his description of the Government as a Government who treat miners as if they do not matter. I find it difficult to understand how a Government who treated miners as if they did not matter would be spending £2 million a day on investment in the coal industry. I find it impossible to understand how a Government who treated miners as if they did not matter would ensure that no miner who wishes to work is going to be made compulsorily redundant as a result of what is going on. I find it difficult to understand how a Government who treated miners as if they do not matter would devote so much effort and energy to developing modern pits in which they can work safely and have an assured future. I do not recognise that description, and I venture to suggest that the majority of miners do not either, the proof of which is that the National Union of Mineworkers seems to be afraid to put it to the test by means of a ballot.

Mr. Tony Marlow: How can it be possible for one man to organise a private army running into thousands, to take it into battle against the police, to use such weapons as stone, fire and stakes against police horses, and to direct it with a walkie-talkie, and for that man not to be guilty of a serious criminal offence? When is Mr. Arthur Scargill going to be arrested?

Mr. Brittan: I am sure that my hon. Friend will agree that it would be wrong for me to judge or condemn any particular person as guilty of a criminal act on the basis of any particular reports, but, of course, the question of prosecution of any individual is a matter, at least in the first instance, for the chief constable of the area in which the alleged offence might have taken place.

Mr. David Winnick: In condemning violence, did the Home Secretary see on television the sight of a police constable lashing out time and again with his truncheon at a picket? What action is going to be taken about that and similar cases? In the light of what is happening, do the Home Secretary and the Prime Minister recognise that an increasing number of people in the country are aware that the Government have virtually declared war on the miners, that the miners are fighting


for their jobs and their security, and that the Government are not going to win any more than they won against the miners in 1972 and 1974?

Mr. Brittan: I utterly repudiate the suggestion of the Government declaring war on the miners, and I have given ample reasons in my answer to the previous question why that is manifest and utter rubbish, and the hon. Gentleman knows it. As to the allegation that the hon. Gentleman made about what he saw on television, as he knows, there is a procedure for the investigation of complaints against the police, and, indeed, in relation to that particular act——

Mr. Winnick: Condemn it.

Mr. Brittan: —I understand that it is that one which is the subject of the inquiry which is being conducted by the chief constable of South Yorkshire.

Mr. Winnick: Condemn it.

Mr. Brittan: I think that the hon. Gentleman might wish to consider, if he is talking about inquiries, whether it would be appropriate for him to bring to bear his influence on the National Union of Mineworkers to consider inquiring into the events which, under the generalship of their leader, led to so much violence occurring yesterday.

Mr. T. H. H. Skeet: Is the Home Secretary aware that the right hon. Gentleman who asked this Private Notice Question voted against the Second Reading of the Employment Act 1980 which brought in the very powers on secondary picketing that he now seeks to have used? Is he further aware that the miners are happily destroying their very mines by allowing them to collapse over a 15-weeks' strike, when they could be saved now if the miners only returned to work?

Mr. Brittan: I was aware of the second point. I must confess that I was not aware of the first point, but I would certainly welcome the right hon. Gentleman's change of mind, if it has occurred.

Mr. Tony Benn: Could the Home Secretary tell the House the extent of his personal involvement in, and responsibility for, police operations which to those in the coalfields appear quite differently from the way in which they are reported in the House? Does he not realise that one of the greatest problems is an apparent lack of understanding by the Government of the determination of the miners not to see their jobs, their industry and their communities destroyed by Mr. MacGregor?

Mr. Brittan: The conduct of police operations is the responsibility of the chief constable in the area concerned. On the question of the determination of the miners, I do not see a single-minded determination; I see a diversity of determination. I see a determination by 50,000 people lawfully to go about their jobs. I see the absolute, passionate determination of those 50,000 that they should not be prevented from doing so by criminal acts conducted on the purported behalf of the majority of their fellow workers, without the matter ever having been put to the test of a ballot.

Mr. Richard Alexander: Can it ever be lawful, peaceful picketing to lead 10,000 men to break into premises with which they have no concern? Can it

ever be lawful, peaceful picketing to hurl stones at police and horses? Is it not typical of the leader of that mob that when he is mildly injured in doing that, he immediately cries foul?

Mr. Brittan: I would not wish to engage in any character analysis, tempting as it is. Of course the use of violence of the kind my hon. Friend describes cannot have anything to do with peaceful picketing. Indeed, I shall go further and say that the numbers involved show that neither as a matter of common sense nor as a matter of law can anyone believe that the purpose of 10,000 people going to a coking plant is peacefully to persuade the people there not to allow goods to leave the premises. The only possible purpose of such numbers is to make it physically impossible for people to do what, of their own free will, they would wish to do.

Mr. Alexander Eadie: Would the right hon. and learned Gentleman really like to try to be helpful today? Will he have a word with his right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, who is sitting beside him, and ask her to disregard entirely Mr. Ian MacGregor's statement that negotiations between the National Union of Mineworkers and the National Coal Board are adjourned sine die—or "sin die" as we would say in Scotland? Will he try to influence the Prime Minister to tell Mr. MacGregor that "nope, nope, nope" in industrial relations means nothing in Britain and has no influence in bettering industrial relations? Only by bettering industrial relations will we solve the problem.

Mr. Brittan: I do not quite understand what the hon. Gentleman is suggesting. The last round of negotiations concluded because the leader of the NUM said that he was not prepared to consider, in any shape or form, the closure of any uneconomic pit. That is the way to require the taxpayer — the ordinary citizen in this country — to continue the indefinite subsidy of an industry uniquely singled out for that purpose, not because of any particular industrial reason but because of the muscle of those who choose to exercise it.

Mr. Cranley Onslow: If my right hon. and learned Friend heard the question that I put to our right hon. Friend the Prime Minister a few minutes ago, can he now tell the House whether the police have advised him whether those arrested and charged with criminal offences following yesterday's riots at Orgreave include any of the ringleaders who so obviously incited and inflamed the mob?

Mr. Brittan: That depends on whom my hon. Friend regards as the ringleaders. A number of charges have been made. The exact evidence about what happened, what has been alleged and what can be proved will have to wait until the cases come before the courts.

Mr. Jack Ashley: Is the Home Secretary aware that this national strike is now turning into a national tragedy? Is it not time to put the passion, anger, indignation and recriminations to one side? Do we not now need a court of inquiry as a concrete foundation upon which reasonable men on both sides can try to create a reasonable settlement? Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman respond to that?

Mr. Brittan: I do not believe that a court of inquiry would be a useful way forward.
What we are seeing is not a national strike. It is a very partial strike. It has not been endorsed by the majority of members of the union involved, and 50,000 people are continuing to work. I do not call that a national strike.

Mr. Ivan Lawrence: Since a limit of six pickets has been accepted in the past by the TUC and the NUM as a wholly reasonable limit on lawful picketing, and since the TUC is unable, and the NUM unwilling, to enforce their voluntary code, is it not time for the Government to consider making that limit legally enforceable?

Mr. Brittan: I will consider what my hon. and learned Friend says, but I do not myself believe that it is a lack of law that is the problem at the moment.

Mr. Alex Carlile: Bearing in mind the fact that many thousands of miners would like to return to work but are understandably afraid to do so, is the Home Secretary satisfied that the existing law is sufficient to protect those who are faced by intimidatory conduct which falls short of physical assault?

. Mr. Brittan: I think that the law is adequate, but, plainly, in the situation to which the hon. and learned Gentleman refers, there is a problem of law enforcement. During Question Time a few weeks ago, I announced to the House the extra concentration of resources to be brought to bear by the police 'to deal with such intimidation. I believe that that concentration of resources on intimidation of the kind which the hon. and learned Gentleman has referred is important and will be valuable.

Mr. Nicholas Budgen: Will my right hon. and learned Friend give an undertaking that the Government have not and will not put private pressure upon the management of the British Steel Corporation to prevent it from using its remedies at civil law against both the funds and the officials of the NUM?

Mr. Brittan: I made it clear at the outset that the Government will in no way stand in the way of the BSC if the BSC's judgment is that that is the right thing to do.

Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse: Is the Home Secretary aware that last Friday a constituent of mine, Mr. Joseph Green, was killed on the picket line while engaged in peaceful picketing, with no police presence, within the framework of the law?
Will the right hon. and learned Gentlemen inform the Prime Minister that my constituents believe that the right hon. Lady is responsible for causing the strike in the first place? That was the second death to occur in my area. Does not the right hon. and learned Gentleman think that the Prime Minister should use her authority now and intervene in an attempt to get the parties round the table for sensible and meaningful talks to put an end to this miserable affair?

Mr. Brittan: I welcome the opportunity to commiserate with the hon. Gentleman with the family on the sad death that occurred, but I have also to commiserate with the hon. Gentleman's constituents on being represented by a Member who thinks it appropriate in such circumstances to make such absurd allegations against my right hon. Friend.

Mr. Jonathan Aitken: Would my right hon. and learned Friend not agree that the only thing that could be worse than the vicious scenes of violence that we saw yesterday would be another Saltley, in which the police were overpowered and mob rule prevailed? Would he not also agree that neither the civil law nor any other remedy so far suggested would be adequate or realistic when compared with the alternative of the police standing firm and doing their duty?

Mr. Brittan: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend on both points.

Mr. Michael Welsh: At Orgreave yesterday, the chief constable of south Yorkshire must have ordered a tremendous number of policemen to carry out their duties there, but then he also brought in the cavalry. There were light troops on horseback hurting the lads on strike and wielding their batons unmercifully. We then saw the riot squad move in and do the same think to our lads—belting them across the head. The result was that 16 loads of coal left the depot for an undertaking that had no desire for it. In Saltley in 1972, the miners went to picket and the chief constable closed the depot down. Nobody was hurt. Which of those chief constables acted most rationally?

Mr. Brittan: If a highwayman holds one up, it is always possible to avoid violence by handing over to him what he wants. I do not commend that course to a society that believes in freedom.

Mr. Robert Adley: Did my right hon. and learned Friend hear, at the beginning of these exchanges, the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) asking why the miners were behaving like this in the face of a Conservative Government — the implication being that it was the Government's behaviour? As five times as many pits were closed under the previous Labour Government, is that not indeed a pertinent question and should we not remind ourselves that this exercise is politically motivated? It is organised by Mr. Scargill, who is aided and abetted by the Opposition.

Mr. Brittan: The more thoughtful people in the mining industry are asking themselves exactly the type of question that my hon. Friend has asked. They are asking whether the interests of the ordinary miner are best served by those who try to persuade him to perpetuate the dispute or by an industry that is trying to modernise with the assistance of large sums of public money and generous provision for those who wish to leave the industry voluntarily.

Mr. Joseph Ashton: Is the Home Secretary aware that when I visited Orgreave in the aftermath of yesterday's violence, a lady who lives nearby asked me to ask the Prime Minister why the dispute has lasted 10 times longer than the Brixton and Toxteth riots, why it has involved 10 times as many arrests and why after Brixton and Toxteth there was an immediate inquiry and Ministers visited the area? The Government acted when Woolworth's and Marks and Spencer had their windows kicked in but they are doing nothing now because they want the violence to continue, thinking that it gains votes for the Conservative party.

Mr. Brittan: That is not a difficult question to answer. When violence occurred at Brixton and Toxteth it was perfectly plain that there were profound underlying causes that needed examination. The causes of violence in the


present dispute are not difficult to understand. They are the determination of a group of people to use physical force to achieve industrial ends.

Mr. David Maclean: Will my right hon. and learned Friend confirm that, in addition to the miners who have been arrested on public order and rioting offences, there are hundreds of others who have been arrested and charged with criminal damage, riot, theft, bodily harm, burglary, and drugs and drunkenness offences? Does he agree that not even the apologists of criminal disorder on the other side of the House can claim that by any stretch of the imagination these offences have anything to do with peaceful picketing?

Mr. Brittan: My hon. Friend is right to say that some charges that are not public order charges have been made. I should not like to confirm the list that he gave but I have answered written questions giving the details.

Mr. Allen McKay: Will the Home Secretary consider the causes as well as the symptoms? Will he bear in mind the fact that the most recent round of meetings broke down but that some progress was made at an earlier meeting? Is it not significant that the chairman of the National Coal Board was not present at the earlier meeting? Does he agree that it is only when the chairman is present that there is a problem? Does he agree that, in the interests of industrial relations, the matter would be better left to people who understand the industry so that they can achieve a settlement? As the coke run at Orgreave is to be stopped, why was it started in the first place? Why was it considered so necessary?

Mr. Brittan: I am advised by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy that the chairman of the coal board was present at the meeting which the hon. Gentleman regards as the more constructive one. In regard to why the Orgreave coke run was started, I do not think that that question need be asked as I see no reason why any justification, explanation or apology need be made for a commercial enterprise removing its goods from one place to another.

Mr. Anthony Beaumont-Dark: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that it is a weasel use of words for the Opposition to condemn the violence on both sides? Is it not a fact that Arthur Scargill opened this Pandora's box of violence and lawlessness to which the police must respond if society is not to fall to pieces? Is it not time that the Opposition were honest on at least one thing and condemned the violence which means that the police must respond with force and use riot shields and helmets which they would not have to use if the miners conducted themselves lawfully?

Mr. Brittan: I entirely agree with my shon. Friend. Anyone who leads 10,000 people to a place such as Orgreave bears a heavy burden of responsibility if some of those people get hurt and if policemen are injured. Whereas generalised condemnations of violence are better than refusals to condemn violence, there would be much weight in people who carry some conviction in the matter feeling it possible to say that they condemn violence generally and leading 10,000 people to a place such as Orgreave, from which violence was bound to ensue.

Mr. Harry Ewing: Does the Home Secretary not understand that those who create the

conditions for violence are just as guilty as those who take part in it, from whichever side of the argument they come? Does he not understand that he is causing the most serious breakdown in police-public relations that the country has ever know, which will be almost impossible to repair when the strike is over? Far from agreeing with the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths), who no longer represents the view of the Police Federation in this matter, why does the Home Secretary not agree with the chairman of the Police Federation who has appealed to the Government several times, including at the recent Police Federation conference in the presence of the Home Secretary, to intervene and stop the police being used as they are by the Government?

Mr. Brittan: The hon. Gentleman has completely misrepresented the Police Federation view and what was said on that occasion. He would do well to consider whether he thinks any useful purpose would be served if he and some of his right hon. and hon. Friends tried to dissuade the leaders of the union from leading thousands of people to a place in such a way as is bound to lead to violence.

Mr. Derek Spencer: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the apologists of violence who wear a moderate face are just as worthy of condemnation as those who openly espouse violence?

Mr. Brittan: I think that they might be slightly more worthy of condemnation because they are more dangerous.

Mr. Roland Boyes: Has the Home Secretary had time to analyse the results of the European elections? If he has, he will have noticed that there was a big swing to Labour, especially——

Mr. Speaker: Order. Questions must be directly related to this matter.

Mr. Boyes: —especially on the coalfields, where the miners are under threat. The reason is clear—no jobs are available. The main reason, however, is that most people realise that the Prime is being hypocritical when——

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must ask a question that relates directly to the subject. He is going far too wide.

Mr. Boyes: The Prime Minister is hypocritical when talking about violence on the picket line and——

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has abused his opportunity.

Mr. Stuart Bell: Will the Home Secretary and those accompanying him on the Government Front Bench accept once and for all that the Opposition have condemned, and will continue to condemn, violence on the picket line and elsewhere? Is he aware of the serious concern that is felt by people throughout the country at the sight on television of mounted police and CRS-type squads armed with shields, visors and hickory sticks? Will the Government accept that they have a role to play in this situation, remembering that all the members of the National Coal Board are appointed by them? Will the Government now bring confrontation to an end by seeking arbitration and reconciliation in the interests not only of the miners and the police but of the nation?

Mr. Brittan: The hon. Gentleman draws my attention to the fact that the Opposition condemn violence. Do they


condemn the bringing of people to the picket line in such numbers that violence is bound to ensue? Until they answer that question, their ritual condemnations of violence will ring hollow.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: Is it not a fact that the Home Secretary and the Government are using the police as a private army to carry out the Tory Government's political dirty work? Why did the Government operate double standards about three weeks ago in relation to farmers who blocked the roads of Aberystwith?

Mr. Speaker: Order. Supplementary questions must be related directly to the question under discussion.

Mr. Skinner: They stopped the traffic, yet not a single arrest was made. It is high time that the Government stopped using the police in this fashion and treated every citizen equally. They should not pick on the miners in the way that they have been doing.

Mr. Brittan: The hon. Gentleman will not persuade us any more than he will persuade his 300 mining constituents in Bolsover who went to work last week.

Mr. Patrick Cormack: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that most people would agree with a constituent of mine, the mother of a miner and a policeman, who said that, in her opinion, Mr. Arthur Scargill was nothing more than a mischievous, revolutionary, evil rabble-rouser?

Mr. Brittan: I have probably said enough about all that, but the House will have heard my hon. Friend's comments.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I wish to raise with you a point that touches on two basic rights which the House looks to you, Mr. Speaker, to enforce. The first is the right of hon. Members in this House to free speech and the second is the right of individuals to a free and unbiased trial when they are charged with offences.
The hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick), in commenting on an incident shown on television in which a police officer was shown to be using a truncheon, condemned that man in this House in advance and asked the Home Secretary to condemn him too. As you know,

Mr. Speaker, the circumstances surrounding that picture are not known; they are being inquired into and it is likely that that will lead to legal proceedings, if the Director of Public Prosecutions agrees, or to a disciplinary tribunal.
I remind you, Mr. Speaker, of two recent cases. There was, first, the Waldorf shooting, in which this House regrettably heard direct condemnations, in advance of the trial, of the police officers concerned. When brought to trial, they were found innocent by a British jury, and subsequently a police complaints tribunal threw out all the disciplinary charges against them.
The second was a more recent case in which newspapers printed a picture of an officer apparently kicking a picket. That too brought condemnation of that officer in this House. Subsequently, however, when a witness who had been abroad came forward, the judge terminated the case and the officer in question was found not guilty.
It is wrong for hon. Members in this House to condemn people who are entitled to a free trial before that trial has taken place.

Mr. Winnick: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I do not think that we need further points of order on this subject. I heard the question asked by the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick), who need not, I think, say anything further. I also heard the reply which was given by the Home Secretary. Having heard what the Home Secretary said about an inquiry, I do not think that any point of order arises.

Mr. Kaufman: Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker. Has not the pursuit by the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths) of his position as paid adviser to the Police Federation become an abuse of the procedures of the House?

Mr. Speaker: Order. Let us get on.

NEW MEMBER

The following Member took and subscribed the Oath:

Michael Thomas Hancock Esq., for Portsmouth, South.

Rent Acts (Amendment)

Mr. Michael Forsyth: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the Rent Acts to make new provision in relation to the supply of private rented accommodation.
In less than the span of a normal life the private landlord has all but been eliminated. At the end of the first world war, 90 per cent. of the population lived in privately rented accommodation. Unlike other European countries and the United States, virtually no house building has been undertaken for private renting since the second world war, and the figure has now been reduced to a mere 9 per cent.
The reason for that is easy to see. In part it has been the growing demand for owner-occupation and in part subsidised competition from local councils, but the major cause has been the imposition of rent control and security of tenure stemming from the first world war's temporary legislation.
Rents were fixed, even allowing for modest permitted rises, at levels too low to allow the property to be maintained, let alone to produce any profit. Property inevitably deteriorated and had to be demolished. The lack of any return meant that building for rent ceased, and security of tenure meant that individual property owners could not regain the use of their property when they needed it. At the first opportunity they therefore gave up letting. There is little need for me to reiterate these basic facts at length. Everyone knows that they are true, even those who, for political reasons, are loudest in denying them.
In any case, we should concern ourselves now with the consequences, with the fact that sections of society which traditionally depended upon the private landlord for accommodation now have the greatest difficulty in finding somewhere to stay, the fact that single people and families with young children, the most vulnerable and the least desirable tenants, are among those hardest hit, and the fact that thousands of houses are lying empty because their owners will not take the risk of renting them under the existing rules. According to the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys, there were 550,000 empty dwellings in the spring of 1977, of which 220,000 were previously in the private rented sector.
Thousands of properties are leased only to foreign nationals, who do not enjoy the protection of the law, and millions of pounds of housing investment has been destroyed during a period when an acute housing shortage has been the normal state of affairs. The result has been to deny many people access to housing, because councils have been reluctant to cater for minority groups, for the young, the mobile, and so on. Indeed, in 1974 controls were extended to furnished accommodation, and by 1976 150,000 lets had been lost. There was a 20 per cent. drop in the number of advertised lettings throughout the country.
We have created a position in which the mobility of labour has all but been destroyed——

Mr. Dennis Canavan: There is no labour to move to, because the Tories have destroyed all the jobs.

Mr. Forsyth: The hon. Gentleman should be interested in the fact that it is often preferable to be in secure, low-rent accommodation and unemployed than to be employed

with housing problems elsewhere. Even in the private sector, with all the problems of regulation and restriction, there is a higher rate of movement among the occupants than in the council housing sector. A study by the economic and statistics unit of the Scottish Economic Planning Department suggested that about 48,000 fewer families moved every year in Scotland because the great bulk of rented accommodation was in the public rather than the private sector.
The result has also been to force many families into buying property when they would have preferred to rent but could not do so. It is one of the great ironies of the past 60 years of housing that the activities of those on the Left who support rent control have done as much as all the housebuilders taken together to increase owner-occupation. Half of the houses that are now owner-occupied came from the privately rented sector, and many of their new owners would have preferred to rent them.
The Government have done much for the council tenant and to encourage home ownership. They must now help those who need, but cannot find, private rented accommodation, by encouraging the creation of a new supply.
My Bill seeks to build on the initiatives taken in the 1980 Act — shorthold tenure and assured tenancies. Complete de-control — to which I am ideologically attracted—would not increase the supply in the short term, as Labour's threats to reintroduce regulation would frighten landlords out of the market and reduce the supply of rented accommodation, as regrettably happened in 1957. There would also be substantial public expenditure implications in terms of increased housing benefit, and there would undoubtedly be hardship to some tenants.
The assured tenancy scheme allows landlords approved by the Minister to build houses for let at market rents, but with tenants having security of tenure. My Bill would amend the scheme in the following way. At present, the scheme applies only to England and Wales, and to newly built property. It should be extended to cover Scotland, of course, and to cover rehabilitated property, in order to encourage the revival of our inner city areas—precisely where there is the greatest demand for private rented property. The body blow dealt to the scheme by the phased withdrawal of capital allowances in the Budget should be mitigated by making projects eligible for urban development grant, and housing associations should be brought into the scheme. Capital allowances, far from being reduced, should be extended to cover the cost of land and services.
If Conservative Members are honest, we should admit that the shorthold tenure experiment has been a grave disappointment. In the first 13 months of its operation, 5,128 shortholds were created in England and Wales. Of those, 4,751 were outside London and a mere 377 were in the capital, where it is compulsory to register a fair rent. Even that exaggerates the position in terms of creating new tenancies, as probably not all of them were new lets.
The reason for the failure of shorthold lies in our mistaking the importance to the landlord not just of being able to regain possession but of securing a reasonable return. Fair rents are often substantially below market rents, as in London, where the scheme has failed and rented accommodation is badly needed. New lettings should not be subject to any form of rent control. In that


way we can provide an incentive to landlords that will increase supply, while in no way affecting the position of existing tenants.
There is increasing evidence that it is already happening informally. A survey of Leeds students in 1982 showed that 60 per cent. of the tenancies created were in the form of a licence. The Small Landlords Association told the Environment Committee:
Not one of our members who relets property ever lets it out again under the terms of the Rent Act.
Let us replace the loophole with a shorthold that allows market rents.
Finally, my Bill seeks to guard against the tiny minority of unscrupulous landlords who might be tempted to exploit deregulation by winkling out secure tenants. It increases the penalties for harassment and illegal eviction. I believe that its provisions will provide hope for substantial sections of our people who find it impossible to obtain rented accommodation. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Minister for being present in the Chamber, and I know that he is undertaking a review of the effects of the Rent Acts. If nothing else, I hope that this Bill will prompt him into taking urgent action to help that group of people.

Mr. Tom Clarke (Monklands, West): rose——

Mr. Speaker: Does the hon. Gentleman seek to oppose the Bill?

Mr. Clarke: Yes, Sir.
In common with other Labour Members, I had some doubts as to the reason for introducing this Bill. The hon. Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth) let the cat out of the bag when he referred to the ideological reasons that lead him to such a conclusion. If the Government's supporters and the Government themselves feel that such a measure is important, they should have the courage to present it as Government legislation and not seek to introduce it in this way.
The hon. Gentleman referred to the housing problems that we face. I should point out — I hope with some modesty—that I spent some time in, local government trying to undo the damage done to housing by such legislation. It has not always been the case that those involved and interested in housing could rely on the private sector. In my time in local government, some of the worst examples of bad housing and squalor were specifically related to the private sector, yet the hon. Gentleman wishes to give that sector priority. That was so despite the fact—notwithstanding the hon. Gentleman's arguments—that profits were being made by the private sector and by those who owned huge estates, who were not all that concerned about the impact of their rents.
The hon. Gentleman does not seem to have any confidence in our rent tribunals, despite the great interest of the Secretary of State for Scotland in their appointment. I believe that, by and large, they have acted fairly. Property owners who feel cheated or badly treated can go to them. Indeed, I have heard very little criticism of them.
The housing problems which we need to consider stem from the fact that the lowest number of houses has been built in the public sector since the war. There are still problems of squalor, overcrowding, dampness and so on. The Government have treated the whole matter in a

disgraceful way. Given all the problems, it would seem that the hon. Gentleman has failed to persuade the House that his Bill would contribute one iota to a solution. He has failed to persuade the House that what he is saying is relevant to the solution of the grave housing problems that we face. For those reasons, and to avoid the problems of housing that we have had in the past, including Rachmanism, which may be rearing its ugly head again, I shall oppose the Bill.

Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 15 (Motions for leave to bring in Bills and nomination of Select Committees at commencement of public business):—

The House divided: Ayes 197, Noes 126.

Division No. 372]
[4.29 pm


AYES


Adley, Robert
Franks, Cecil


Aitken, Jonathan
Freeman, Roger


Alexander, Richard
Freud, Clement


Alton, David
Gale, Roger


Amess, David
Galley, Roy


Arnold, Tom
Gardiner, George (Reigate)


Ashby, David
Gardner, Sir Edward (Fylde)


Atkins, Rt Hon Sir H.
Glyn, Dr Alan


Atkins, Robert (South Ribble)
Gower, Sir Raymond


Baldry, Anthony
Greenway, Harry


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Gregory, Conal


Batiste, Spencer
Griffiths, E. (B'y St Edm'ds)


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Grist, Ian


Beith, A. J.
Ground, Patrick


Bendall, Vivian
Grylls, Michael


Benyon, William
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Berry, Sir Anthony
Hampson, Dr Keith


Best, Keith
Hancock, Michael


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Hannam, John.


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Hargreaves, Kenneth


Bowden, A. (Brighton K'to'n)
Hawkins, C. (High Peak)


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Hayes, J.


Braine, Sir Bernard
Hayward, Robert


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Bright, Graham
Heddle, John


Brown, M. (Brigg &amp; Cl'thpes)
Henderson, Barry


Browne, John
Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.


Bruinvels, Peter
Hind, Kenneth


Bryan, Sir Paul
Holland, Sir Philip (Gedling)


Buck, Sir Antony
Holt, Richard


Budgen, Nick
Hordern, Peter


Bulmer, Esmond
Howarth, Alan (Stratf'd-on-A)


Burt, Alistair
Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)


Carlile, Alexander (Montg'y)
Howell, Rt Hon D. (G'ldford)


Carlisle, John (N Luton)
Howells, Geraint


Cartwright, John
Hubbard-Miles, Peter


Cash, William
Hughes, Simon (Southwark)


Chapman, Sydney
Hunter, Andrew


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Irving, Charles


Cockeram, Eric
Jessel, Toby


Conway, Derek
Johnston, Russell


Coombs, Simon
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Cormack, Patrick
Jones, Robert (W Herts)


Couchman, James
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine


Crouch, David
King, Rt Hon Tom


Dickens, Geoffrey
Kirkwood, Archy


Dicks, Terry
Knowles, Michael


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.
Latham, Michael


Dover, Den
Lawler, Geoffrey


Durant, Tony
Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)


Eggar, Tim
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark


Emery, Sir Peter
Lewis, Sir Kenneth (Stamf'd)


Fairbairn, Nicholas
Lightbown, David


Fallon, Michael
Lloyd, Peter, (Fareham)


Farr, John
MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire)


Favell, Anthony
Maclean, David John


Forman, Nigel
Maples, John


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Marland, Paul


Forth, Eric
Marlow, Antony


Fox, Marcus
Mates, Michael






Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Soames, Hon Nicholas


Mayhew, Sir Patrick
Speed, Keith


Meadowcroft, Michael
Spencer, Derek


Meyer, Sir Anthony
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Miller, Hal (B'grove)
Stanbrook, Ivor


Mills, Iain (Meriden)
Steel, Rt Hon David


Monro, Sir Hector
Steen, Anthony


Montgomery, Fergus
Stern, Michael


Moynihan, Hon C.
Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)


Neale, Gerrard
Stevens, Martin (Fulham)


Norris, Steven
Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)


Onslow, Cranley
Sumberg, David


Oppenheim, Philip
Tapsell, Peter


Oppenheim, Rt Hon Mrs S.
Taylor, John (Solihull)


Ottaway, Richard
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Owen, Rt Hon Dr David
Temple-Morris, Peter


Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil
Terlezki, Stefan


Parris, Matthew
Thomas, Rt Hon Peter


Pawsey, James
Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)


Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth
Thorne, Neil (Ilford S)


Prentice, Rt Hon Reg
Thornton, Malcolm


Proctor, K. Harvey
Thurnham, Peter


Raffan, Keith
Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)


Rathbone, Tim
Tracey, Richard


Rhodes James, Robert
Twinn, Dr Ian


Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey
Wallace, James


Robinson, Mark (N'port W)
Waller, Gary


Rossi, Sir Hugh
Walters, Dennis


Rowe, Andrew
Wardle, C. (Bexhill)


Rumbold, Mrs Angela
Whitfield, John


Ryder, Richard
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Sackville, Hon Thomas
Winterton, Nicholas


Sayeed, Jonathan
Wood, Timothy


Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')
Woodcock, Michael


Shelton, William (Streatham)
Yeo, Tim


Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)



Silvester, Fred
Tellers for the Ayes:


Sims, Roger
Mr. Christopher Chope and


Skeet, T. H. H.
Mr. Henry Bellingham


Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)





NOES


Abse, Leo
Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S.)


Anderson, Donald
Cohen, Harry


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Conlan, Bernard


Ashton, Joe
Corbyn, Jeremy


Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)
Craigen, J. M.


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Crowther, Stan


Bell, Stuart
Cunningham, Dr John


Benn, Tony
Dalyell, Tam


Bennett, A. (Dent'n &amp; Red'sh)
Davies, Ronald (Caerphilly)


Boothroyd, Miss Betty
Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'ge H'l)


Boyes, Roland
Deakins, Eric


Brown, Gordon (D'f'mline E)
Dewar, Donald


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Dixon, Donald


Caborn, Richard
Dobson, Frank


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Dormand, Jack


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Douglas, Dick


Clarke, Thomas
Dubs, Alfred


Clay, Robert
Duffy, A. E. P.


Clwyd, Ms Ann
Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.





Eadie, Alex
Maxton, John


Eastham, Ken
Michie, William


Ellis, Raymond
Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)


Evans, John (St.Helens N)
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)


Ewing, Harry
O'Brien, William


Fatchett, Derek
O'Neill, Martin


Fisher, Mark
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Flannery, Martin
Park, George


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Parry, Robert


Forrester, John
Patchett, Terry


Fraser, J. (Norwood)
Pavitt, Laurie


George, Bruce
Pendry, Tom


Golding, John
Pike, Peter


Hamilton, James (M'well N)
Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)


Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)
Radice, Giles


Harman, Ms Harriet
Redmond, M.


Harrison, Rt Hon Walter
Richardson, Ms Jo


Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Roberts, Allan (Bootle)


Haynes, Frank
Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)


Healey, Rt Hon Denis
Robertson, George


Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)
Rogers, Allan


Hoyle, Douglas
Rooker, J. W.


Hughes, Dr. Mark (Durham)
Ross, Ernest (Dundee W)


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Sedgemore, Brian


Hughes, Roy (Newport East)
Sheerman, Barry


Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)
Sheldon, Rt Hon R.


John, Brynmor
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)
Silkin, Rt Hon J.


Leighton, Ronald
Skinner, Dennis


Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Smith, C.(Isl'ton S &amp; F'bury)


Lewis, Terence (Worsley)
Smith, Rt Hon J. (M'kl'ds E)


Litherland, Robert
Strang, Gavin


Lofthouse, Geoffrey
Straw, Jack


Loyden, Edward
Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)


McDonald, Dr Oonagh
Thomas, Dr R. (Carmarthen)


McKay, Allen (Penistone)
Thompson, J. (Wansbeck)


Mackenzie, Rt Hon Gregor
Wareing, Robert


McNamara, Kevin
Welsh, Michael


McTaggart, Robert
Wilson, Gordon


McWilliam, John
Winnick, David


Madden, Max
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Marek, Dr John



Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Tellers for the Noes:


Martin, Michael
Mr. John Home Robertson and


Mason, Rt Hon Roy
Mr. Dennis Canavan.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Michael Forsyth, Mr. Marcus Fox, Mr. John Heddle, Mr. Andrew MacKay, Mr. Henry Bellingham, Mr. Christopher Chope, Mr. Robert Jackson, Mr. Robert B. Jones, Mr. Gerald Howarth and Mr. Alan Howarth.

RENT ACTS (AMENDMENT)

Mr. Michael Forsyth accordingly presented a Bill to amend the Rent Acts to make new provision in relation to the supply of private rented accommodation: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 6 July and to be printed. [Bill 198.]

Question of Privilege

Mr. Toby Jessel: I wish to draw attention to words spoken by the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) during the debate on 12 June —Official Report, columns 830 and 840–1—and I beg to move,
That the matter of the complaint be referred to the Committee of Privileges.
Last Tuesday, 12 June, the House debated the Greater London Council (Money) (No. 2) Bill. My hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate (Sir A. Berry) proposed an Instruction to the Committee considering the Bill to make part of the Greater London council's capital expenditure subject to Treasury consent. During the debate the hon. Member for Newham, North-West said:
I know what projects will be hit if this instruction is carried. I shall use what small influence I have at county hall to ensure that we hit the constituencies of those Conservative Members who vote in favour of the instruction. There will be a certain degree of 'selective vindictiveness' —I use a phrase that has been mentioned before. There is no way that Conservative Members should think that they can escape from the consequences of their actions. I shall do my best as an individual member of the GLC to ensure that retribution is visited on the heads of Conservative Members. I hope that the GLC will ensure that the constituents of Conservative Members know exactly who is responsible for cutting projects in their areas.
Then, following an intervention by my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley), the hon. Member continued:
Conservative Members will not be allowed to get away with quietly passing this measure. No one is reporting this debate, so it will not get a great deal of publicity. They must not believe that they will get away with this action, without some retribution being visited upon them. I shall certainly use whatever influence I have at county hall to ensure that they pay the price.
Later, when my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Thorne) rebuked the hon. Member with some force, the hon. Member for Newham, North-West intervened to say:
I do not apologise for one word that I said, but I want the hon. Gentleman to know that I spoke as an individual Member of this House and as an individual member of the Greater London council. I do not apologise. I shall use my influence in just the way that I described."—[Official Report, 12 June 1984; Vol. 61, c. 830, 840–1.]
The hon. Member was invited to withdraw those words. He has not done so. Meanwhile, I understand that my hon. Friend the Member for Surbiton (Mr. Tracey) heard the hon. Member for Newham, North-West repeat similar remarks in a radio broadcast.
All local councillors in any local authority have some executive role in that local authority. I believe the hon. Member will not mind if I say that for some years he has been a leading and influential figure on the Greater London council. He has been chairman of two important committees. We must assume that he meant what he said and that it was not meant to be an empty threat.
Because of the meaning of the words that he used, it must be right for the House to refer the matter to the Select Committee of Privileges. The words "selective vindictiveness" in that context mean that the constituents and the constituencies of hon. Members voting in a certain way would be singled out from other constituencies for damaging reprisals.
It is the essence of parliamentary democracy that hon. Members can speak or vote without threat to themselves or to their constituents, and without intimidation. On that "Erskine May" is quite clear. It says:
Attempted intimidation of Members. To attempt to influence Members in their conduct by threats is … a breach of privilege.
The House cannot let this go by. We cannot submit to threats or blackmail, financial or otherwise. As Kipling put it:
We never pay any-one Dane-geld,
No matter how trifling the cost;
For the end of that game is oppression and shame,
And the nation that plays it is lost!

Mr. Tony Banks: I believe that this motion represents an unpardonable waste of parliamentary time. There are 4 million people unemployed, and the Government are at war with the people; yet the House chooses to debate a motion about whether comments I made should be referred to the Committee of Privileges because some London Tory Members of Parliament feel sensitive about them.
The hon. Member for Twickenham (Mr. Jessel) has somewhat overstated the case. In the debate last Tuesday, 12 June, I spoke as an individual Member of the House and as an individual member of the Greater London council. I am not in control of GLC policy and I cannot commit the GLC to a particular course of action.
I remind the House of the situation on Tuesday, 12 June, when the Greater London Council (Money) (No. 2) Bill was debated. The Government were proposing—I admit they put up a number of Back Benchers to do it —a series of massive reductions in the GLC's capital spending programme for 1984–85. The effect of the instruction to the Committee was that there should be a 52 per cent. cut in the council's planned new capital expenditure. That would affect projects throughout London. When I said that I knew the projects that would be affected, I was referring to all the projects throughout London, in whatever constituency they happened to be. Those projects include nursery classes, indoor lavatories, playing fields, provision for the single homeless, new homes, environmental improvements and new roads. Why should London Tory Members of Parliament believe that they could enforce cuts in capital spending and get away with it scot free?
The hon. Member for Twickenham correctly quoted from the Official ReportWhat I said. He seems to have taken exception to the phrase "selective vindictiveness". The implication of my words needs to be clearly understood. The meaning was that, when decisions were being taken at county hall as between which capital projects should proceed, and where all other questions were equal, I would argue, as an individual member of the GLC, that discrimination should be exercised against those projects which were in the constituencies of the Tory Members of Parliament who forced the cuts to be made in the first place.
I am sure that the overriding concern of the GLC would always be the needs of Londoners, as it always has been; but where hard choices have to made, and all other things being equal, I believe that the voting record of Tory MPs should be taken into account.
The word "blackmail" has been bandied about. Blackmail presupposes a threat to extract something. Last


Tuesday, as ever, Tory MPs were beyond reason or threat. I told them honestly what I would seek to do after the vote. There was no thought whatsoever in my mind that hon. Members would or should interpret my words as a pre-vote threat; rather, that they should interpret them as a post-vote promise.
All Members of Parliament, Mr. Speaker, must accept the consequences of their actions and not whinge afterwards. When it comes to acting vindictively, few could match the record of the present Government. The entire local government strategy is based on vindictiveness——

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must confine his remarks to the motion before us and not go wide of it.

Mr. Banks: But the term "selective vindictiveness" is one that seems to have affected hon. Members opposite. I was merely seeking to demonstrate that selective vindictiveness lies at the centre of the Government's strategy with regard to local government.
The abolition of the GLC and the metropolitan county councils is based on selective vindictiveness. They are all Labour-controlled authorities. The rate-capping hit list that we have heard so much about is similarly based on a Government strategy that is singling out those Labour local authorities that choose to defend their services, rather than bow down to the diktats of the Government.
I ask the House, to balance the Government's real selective vindictiveness against my few gentle words. I spoke honestly, if somewhat robustly, during the debate last Tuesday. I was not seeking to influence the voting of hon. Members opposite. They are beyond hope. What I said was in the spirit of robust debate and, in my opinion, was not a breach of parliamentary privilege.

The hon. Member then withdrew.

Mr. Richard Tracey: It is with sadness that I rise to speak on this matter, because the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) is, like myself, a new Member of the House. We came here on the same day. I have listened with regret to the attitudes taken by the hon. Member during his speech. [HON. MEMBERS: "Order"]

Mr. Speaker: I must say to hon. Members that the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) is withdrawing in accordance with precedent.

Mr. Tracey: It must be accepted by us all that when we are Members of such an august place as this we must conduct ourselves according to the rules. We must be the guardians of our own rules and stand up for them. It is for that reason that I supported my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Mr. Jessel) and my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Thorne) in writing to you, Mr. Speaker, on the matter.
I was shocked indeed to hear what the hon. Member for Newham, North-West said during the debate. He continued to say it, not once but several times. It was, of course, heavily reported in the press. I was shocked to hear him once more speaking in an interview and repeating the same sort of threats on LBC during last Wednesday morning.
Because of the heavy reporting, I and other right hon. and hon. Members in London have received very worried

messages and telephone calls from constituents. I am sure that their fear is shared by many Conservative leaders of borough councils in London. It was made clear—and I shall repeat one of his sentences in answer to what we have just heard from the hon. Member for Newham, North-West—
I shall do my best as an individual member of the GLC to ensure that retribution is visited on the heads of Conservative Members."—[Official Report, 12 June 1984; Vol. 61, c. 830.]
That was a very clear threat to those of us who supported the instruction on the Bill. I fear, Mr. Speaker, that that was a typical act, of the sort that we are beginning to see certainly in London politics, but also in a wider area, and which often comes from hon. Members who are not prepared to accept the rules.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: Mr. Speaker, I hope that the House will decide to refer this matter to the consideration of the Committee of Privileges, and for a very specific reason. There seems to me no doubt, if the words in question had been spoken by anyone who was not an hon. Member, that that would have constituted a most gross contempt of the House and it would have been incumbent upon the House to proceed against him. But that does not necessarily apply to an hon. Member. We must be particularly careful that we do nothing that limits the freedom of expression and of speech of hon. Members in the Chamber and in their capacity as Members of Parliament.
This is a matter on which we need advice, after the precedents have been carefully considered and, in a cooler atmosphere, after the matter has been debated by the Committee of Privileges. I would be sorry if we should fail to deal with an allegation that might tend in future to limit the freedom of debate and of speech in this House. I think that the Committee of Privileges can serve us best, and I hope that we shall seek its help.

Mr. Robin Maxwell-Hyslop: I rise to draw to your attention, Mr. Speaker, that, not for the first time, there is an extremely serious error in "Erskine May" on this matter. As far too many right hon. and hon. Members regard "Erskine May" as authoritative, I should draw this matter to the attention of the House. At page 174, "Erskine May" says, quite wrongly:
Where the Member complained of is present when the complaint is made, or attends pursuant to the order of the House, it is the rule that he should be heard in explanation or exculpation as soon as the question on the motion founded upon the comp taint is proposed from the chair, and then withdraw".
It goes on to say at the end of the paragraph:
If the Member does not withdraw, of his own accord, the Speaker will direct him to do so.
That is wholly incorrect, Mr. Speaker. I raised this very point in the Maudling case, and Mr. Speaker Thomas, your predecessor, ruled that neither a Standing Order of the House nor any other requirement entailed an hon. Member withdrawing. It was the clear wish of the House that hon. Members complained of should hear all charges made against them.
Because this false doctrine has been repeated in the latest edition of "Erskine May", I want formally to place on record once again the danger of relying on "Erskine May". I suspect that the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) has withdrawn from the debate


in the erroneous belief that there is a rule that he should do so, and has founded his erroneous belief on the false statement in "Erskine May". The House should be warned, once again, of the danger of relying on a fallible reference work, as if it were a statement of authority, which it is not and never can be.

Mr. Michael Foot): I am sorry to disagree with the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell), who has spoken on a matter of privilege, because we have usually been in agreement on these matters. I strongly disagree with what he said to the House a few minutes ago, and I should like to say why.
Over the past few years there has been a change in the procedure for dealing with privilege. That has brought about a great improvement. The change has meant that fewer issues of privilege have been raised. They have been sifted through Mr. Speaker's Office, which has meant a great reduction in the number of privilege cases brought to the House. That is greatly to the benefit of the House of Commons, and it has sustained the principle that the right hon. Gentleman was enunciating—that we in this House should strongly uphold the rights of free speech and do everything in our power to prevent any interruption of that process.
However, under the new procedure, even when it is agreed by you, Mr. Speaker, that an hon. Member should have the right to move his motion, that does not mean that the House of Commons has to agree with that proposition. We have every right to listen to what is said by the mover of the motion, to take into account various factors, including those mentioned by the right hon. Member for Down, South, and to decide that we do not want the matter to be sent to the Committee of Privileges. I shall give some reasons why it is wrong in this instance.
If the matter is sent to the Committee of Privileges, there will be an elaborate investigation, and it is likely that there will be disagreement in the Committee. The matter will then have to come back to the House, and that will not settle the question. There will have to be a debate. Far from that ending the matter, it is likely to be extended over a much longer period.
Therefore, I appeal to the House to exercise its sense and to finish the matter here and now. The best way to do so is, having aired the matter, for the hon. Member for Twickenham (Mr. Jessel) to withdraw his motion. If he does not do that, I urge the House to reject his motion. Members of Parliament, above all other people, must show that they have thick skins to stand up to these matters. They have available the means of answering all the accusations made against them. If some London Members did not like the accusations made by my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks), they have every opportunity of answering them inside or outside the House. That is the proper way to deal with those matters.
If the matter were referred to the Committee of Privileges, and if the Committee upheld the claim made by the hon. Member for Twickenham, there would be a limitation on the speech of hon. Members. It is much better for us in the House to show that we are in favour of the full cut and thrust of debate.
Privilege matters are not for the Government. I hope that the Leader of the House will not support this proposition.

The Lord Privy Seal and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Biffen): indicated dissent.

Mr. Foot: I am glad to see that the right hon. Gentleman is shaking his head. In most cases, we have been in agreement.
I suggest to the hon. Member for Twickenham that the best way to deal with the matter is for him, having aired it, to withdraw his motion. If he does not, I urge the House to reject it, in the name of free speech.

Mr. Peter Shore: Yesterday, Mr. Speaker, you played your part in deciding to give precedence to the motion in today's business. Under our new procedures for discussing matters of privilege, that is how we go forward.
I was provoked by what was said by my right hon. Friend the Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot) to speak at this point. It is right to consider whether it is sensible, whether we are right, and whether the House of Commons is sufficiently seized of the matter to go through the procedure and rigmarole of reference to the Committee of Privileges. I should like to put two or three points to you, Mr. Speaker, and to the House, to show why, in my view, it would be a mistake so to proceed.
My arguments are these. First, I remind the House of a ruling that you gave, Mr. Speaker, on another matter concerning the use of unparliamentary language. You said that a great deal depended upon the context in which the alleged offence took place. I agree that the context is extremely important. If we stand back for a moment from the passions involved and consider the context in which those exchanges took place and those words were said, we see that the context was part of a series of debates on the Greater London council, which, whatever other hon. Members think, is faced with limitations on its powers and its expenditure, rate capping, the abolition of voting in London and the abolition of the council itself. Whatever else the House may say about that, there is likely to be a highly charged atmosphere. It was in that highly charged atmosphere that the remarks were made. Therefore, the context is important.
My second point concerns the seriousness and gravity of the matter. My hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) is, as he went out of his way to stress, one member of the GLC. I remind the House that last time we considered a matter of privilege it was on almost exactly the same issue. I agree with the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) that it was a voice from outside the House, so it was much more serious. It was alleged that voices were heard in county hall threatening Members with a selective cut off of benefits and capital allocation if they voted in a way that the GLC disapproved. It turned out not to be the case. A letter was read out by your predecessor, Mr. Speaker, on 19 January 1983, making it absolutely plain that it was the policy of the GLC that
decisions on which projects would proceed would not be based on how MPs voted but on the needs of London.
The leader of the GLC added these words:


'the GLC will continue to allocate resources on the basis of need. To do otherwise would be to penalise the working people of London'."—[Official Report, 19 January 1983; Vol. 35, c. 339.]
I have no doubt that that remains the policy of the GLC and would remain the policy supported by my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West, who is a member of that authority. [HON. MEMBERS: "He did not say that."] The third thing that I shall mention is what my hon. Friend did say, and his intention, which he expressed a few minutes ago. He went out of his way to say that he was not seeking to influence the vote on the day. That is what he said to the House in what must be considered a personal statement involving his personal honour. He said that he was not seeking to influence the vote, although he did not withdraw what he said about taking action afterwards if he had his way. However, in no sense will he get his way because it is not part of the policy of the authority of which he is a member.
We have a vast machinery to consider matters of privilege. Among other things, "Erskine May", which, I agree, we have to read with great care, tells us that privilege is basically about an act which obstructs or impedes any Member of the House in the discharge of his duty. I do not honestly think that what was said and the influence and authority of the hon. Member who said it would in any way affect the conduct of Members of the House and prevent them from discharging their proper duties.
Therefore, I hope that the House will reject the motion or, better still, that the hon. Member for Twickenham (Mr. Jessel) will withdraw it.

Mr. Neil Thorne: I would like to believe that the right hon. Members for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot) and for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) are correct, but I do not think that they are. After the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) made his statement last week, he had more than one opportunity to withdraw it in the House not only that day but again two days later. However, he consistently refused to do so.
When hon. Members are elected to this House, we are proud of the fact that we take up certain privileges. One of the privileges that we prize most is the ability to speak without fear or favour on behalf of our constituents. In this case, an hon. Member was threatening other hon. Members that if they failed to do what he wanted he would bring retribution upon them. That is an attempt to take away one of the privileges of Members of the House.
Therefore, I have no wish to encourage my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Mr. Jessel) to withdraw his motion. I hope that he will pursue it to a vote if necessary, because I believe that the only answer in this case is for the matter to be referred to the Committee of Privileges.

Mr. Brian Sedgemore: I hope that the whole House will reject this absurd motion, which arises from the antics of weasels in Twickenham. The last time that I heard the hon. Member for Twickenham (Mr. Jessel) speak was on 24 February this year, at the Maidstone college of art. His speech then, like his speech this afternoon, was full of unction and piety and laced with pantomime tickling and farce. He began by developing the spermatozoic theory of art. That is the

theory that the love of art stems from the genes in the sperm. He said that we could be sure that his love of art was genuine because his wife, his granny, his nephews and his nieces——

Mr. Speaker: Order. I remind the hon. Gentleman that an important debate is due to take place after the House has dealt with this issue.

Mr. Sedgemore: Indeed, Mr. Speaker. However, the hon. Gentleman referred to two matters which are pertinent to this debate and to the serious charges that, in his absurd way, he is seeking to bring against my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks). First, the hon. Gentleman developed a theory of art which was in complete contradiction to that which my hon. Friend has developed. That shows that there may be an element of ideological spite in the bringing of the motion. However, in what was perhaps the worst economic diatribe ever issued on any platform in any land at any time, the hon. Gentleman went on to call for massive public expenditure cuts. That is precisely what my hon. Friend has promised the hon. Gentleman in his constituency. That being so, why is he croaking and squawking in mounting a spurious protest?
The House should reject the motion, for two basic reasons. First, it must decide whether it is an adult institution which believes in free speech. Secondly, it must decide whether it wants to become an institution which has 654 Members of little Ruritania in which we all wear funny hats and take ourselves desperately seriously and pompously on these occasions. I am sure that no one can surpass the hon. Member for Twickenham in pious pomposity. If the House is to have some relevance to freedom of speech and decency, we should reject the motion out of hand.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: The right hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot) appeared to be talking about what he described as an accusation. We are talking about a threat, a promise or a declared intention, and not an accusation.
Secondly, the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) gave the impression that the words spoken by the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) during consideration of the Greater London Council (Money) (No. 2) Bill were uttered in a heated debate. The fact is that it was not a heated debate and there were genuine opportunities for the hon. Gentleman to withdraw the promise of selective vindictiveness. That he failed to do, and has still failed to do. Like the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell), I believe that the matter should go to the Committee of Privileges and we should then consider its report.

Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: I support the suggestion that the motion should be withdrawn or rejected. My hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) was merely drawing attention to the implications for Londoners of the retribution that the Conservative Back-Bench group, inspired by the Government, was seeking to impose upon so many poor people in London. The issue that should be before the House is the treatment of British people, especially those in the poorest inner city areas, by Conservative Members.

Mr. Speaker: Order. But that is not the issue before the House. The issue before the House is that which appears on the Order Paper.

Mr. Corbyn: I appreciate that, Mr. Speaker. There must be a sense of proportion in the treatment of my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West. As a member of the GLC, my hon. Friend was saying that the GLC would be grievously affected by the Conservative Back-Bench move to withhold millions of pounds by blocking the Greater London Council (Money) (No. 2) Bill and he spoke of the effect that that would have on Londoners. He said that, "all things being equal", he would treat differently constituencies represented by Conservative Members as opposed to those represented by Labour Members.
Millions of pounds have been removed from London. The antics of Conservative Members have cost the borough in my constituency £2 million in housing and other forms of capital investment. Those who will be denied any opportunity of decent housing in future by Conservative Members will have no means of answering back, but Conservative Members have every means of speaking up in their own defence at every stage.
I hope that the House will reject the motion. Conservative Members have adequate access to speaking in this place and their friends in the media have the power to ensure that their views are known. London's homeless and those of other inner city areas do not have that right.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: The electorate will find it strange when it hears that the House is upset that one of its Members, my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks), decided to say on one occasion, when there were many other opportunities, that some politicians might be hurt in their constituencies as a result of a statement made in this place, which some electors refer to as "pork-barrel palace". That happens every day that the House sits. The Government have put 4 million on the dole. Every Conservative Member has decided that in the north of England and in many other areas there will be worse unemployment than elsewhere.
What about Members who decide on their own account to restrict their own freedom? No one has made them do that. About 350 of them have decided to become directors of various companies. I am told that one Conservative Member has more than 20 directorships. Members of Parliament who have accepted directorships have decided to become part-time Members when it comes to looking after their constituents. My hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West has not told 350 Conservative Members to take directorships and to restrict their freedom to look after their constituents. He has not said, "If you happen to run into conflict with your job as an MP"—

Mr. Speaker: Order. That is not the issue before us.

Mr. Skinner: Of course it is.

Mr. Speaker: No. The hon. Gentleman is an experienced parliamentarian and he knows that he must confine himself to the issue that is before the House, which is a complaint, and should not go wider than that.

Mr. Skinner: I am trying to explain the issue for the electorate, Mr. Speaker, and not for the cosy club in this place. This is a matter for everyone outside the House. The electorate will think that this place is super-sensitive if a

Labour Member—I stress, Labour—is called to task for saying something that many Tory Members are putting into practice every day.
It is unchallenged that many Tory Members are restricting their own freedom. If a Member has 27 directorships, it must limit his ability to carry out his work on behalf of his constituents. There are 350 directors, 150 consultancies and adviserships, 50 Lloyd's underwriters and about 100 lawyers in this place. Many of them—but not my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Mr. Sedgemore)— work in the courts. That is why we start at half-past two in the afternoon. Every one of them is restricting his freedom and ability to serve his constituents.
I have never known such a load of pompous arrogance in my time. Someone has had the nerve to say, "By the way, the Government are abolishing the GLC and all those who represent London constituencies and constituencies within metropolitan authorities, including Tory Members who marched through the Government's Division Lobby, will be affected." One of my hon. Friends has had the guts to say—he was fortified by some of his hon. Friends—that there will be consequences for Tory Members. He has had the guts not to bow down and we have every right — indeed, a duty — to say that the Tories are acting similarly every day.

Mr. Speaker: rose——

Mr. Skinner: I have not finished yet, Mr. Speaker. You used to be a Whip, Mr. Speaker. You were in the Conservative Whips' Office for many years. You know as well as anyone else who has been in that office, including those who have been hanging around this place for a number of years, that there are many hon. Members who get trips abroad——

Mr. Speaker: Order. I ask the hon. Gentleman to be brief. We have an important debate ahead of us and many right hon. and hon. Members, including Labour Members, want to participate in it.

Mr. Skinner: Yes, it is an important issue, as is free speech, and that has been said over and over again. When Members decide to go on phoney fact-finding trips—they are mainly Conservative Members who have been assisted by the Government Whips, but they include Labour Members—they are restricting their freedom to represent their constituents. That is the result of them lying in the sun in the Caribbean.
I know why some Tory Members will walk into the Division Lobby with the hon. Member for Twickenham. It is because the house is based on patronage, and they have a weather eye on the Tory Front Bench. Many Tory Members will think about a tinpot job, a junior Minister's job, a bag-carrying job or, for those who have missed the boat, a knighthood or peerage. That is how the House operates.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I think that the hon. Member is concluding his remarks.

Mr. Skinner: Yes, Sir, I have nearly finished. The House is based on patronage, and it stinks. That is why I shall support my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West in his attempt to stop this stupid motion being carried.

The Lord Privy Seal and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Biffen): The Standing Order requires that this privilege debate takes precedence and that requires the House to show great self-discipline, because the debate comes before other business. Today it comes before a most important defence debate. This debate has been most entertaining and fairly wide-ranging and was not confined religiously and pedantically to the motion. I thank the Members who spoke, not least the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), who is House of Lords material of the decade.
The contributions from the right hon. Members for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot) and for Down, South (Mr. Powell) characterised the debate. The House could not have two more respected and revered proceduralists to distinguish its debates. They put to the House its choice. The right hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent said that, although the subject was important, the House must have a sense of proportion about such a matter, and that we may find that we have done little more than cause a modest degree of martyrdom. The right hon. Gentleman is as good a martyr to many causes as any. He argued, on the principle of good, sound common sense, that we should move to next business.
By contrast, the right hon. Member for Down, South suggested that the topic was not wholly dissimilar from a recent debate regarding remarks made outside the House, when the House decided that it was appropriate to refer the matter to the Committee of Privileges for further advice and consent. He said that it would be undesirable if we did not again go to the Committee of Privileges. Otherwise, it might seem that there was one attitude for remarks made outside the House and another for remarks made in the House. That raises an issue of interest and fascination, and possibly of principle.
When we vote, which I hope we shall do soon, I shall consider it a privilege to be in the same Lobby as the right hon. Member for Down, South.

Question put:—

The House divided: Ayes 303, Noes 135.

Division No. 373]
[5.23 pm


AYES


Adley, Robert
Bonsor, Sir Nicholas


Aitken, Jonathan
Boscawen, Hon Robert


Alexander, Richard
Bottomley, Peter


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Bottomley, Mrs Virginia


Alton, David
Bowden, A. (Brighton K'to'n)


Amery, Rt Hon Julian
Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)


Amess, David
Boyson, Dr Rhodes


Ancram, Michael
Braine, Sir Bernard


Arnold, Tom
Brandon-Bravo, Martin


Aspinwall, Jack
Bright, Graham


Atkins, Rt Hon Sir H.
Brinton, Tim


Atkins, Robert (South Ribble)
Brooke, Hon Peter


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Vall'y)
Brown, M. (Brigg &amp; Cl'thpes)


Baldry, Anthony
Browne, John


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Bruinvels, Peter


Batiste, Spencer
Bryan, Sir Paul


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon A.


Beith, A. J.
Buck, Sir Antony


Bellingham, Henry
Budgen, Nick


Bendall, Vivian
Bulmer, Esmond


Benyon, William
Burt, Alistair


Berry, Sir Anthony
Butcher, John


Best, Keith
Carlile, Alexander (Montg'y)


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Carlisle, John (N Luton)


Biggs-Davison, Sir John
Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)


Body, Richard
Cartwright, John





Cash, William
Holt, Richard


Chalker, Mrs Lynda
Hordern, Peter


Chapman, Sydney
Howarth, Alan (Stratf'd-on-A)


Chope, Christopher
Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)


Clark, Hon A. (Plym'th S'n)
Howell, Rt Hon D. (G'ldford)


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Howells, Geraint


Clegg, Sir Walter
Hubbard-Miles, Peter


Cockeram, Eric
Hughes, Simon (Southwark)


Colvin, Michael
Hunt, David (Wirral)


Conway, Derek
Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)


Coombs, Simon
Hunter, Andrew


Cope, John
Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas


Couchman, James
Irving, Charles


Critchley, Julian
Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick


Crouch, David
Jessel, Toby


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Dickens, Geoffrey
Jones, Robert (W Herts)


Dicks, Terry
Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith


Dorrell, Stephen
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.
Kershaw, Sir Anthony


Dover, Den
Key, Robert


du Cann, Rt Hon Edward
King, Rt Hon Tom


Dunn, Robert
Kirkwood, Archy


Durant, Tony
Knight, Gregory (Derby N)


Dykes, Hugh
Knowles, Michael


Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)
Lamont, Norman


Eggar, Tim
Latham, Michael


Emery, Sir Peter
Lawler, Geoffrey


Fairbairn, Nicholas
Lawrence, Ivan


Fallon, Michael
Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel


Farr, John
Lee, John (Pendle)


Favell, Anthony
Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)


Fenner, Mrs Peggy
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark


Fletcher, Alexander
Lester, Jim


Fookes, Miss Janet
Lewis, Sir Kenneth (Stamf'd)


Forman, Nigel
Lightbown, David


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Lilley, Peter


Forth, Eric
Lloyd, Peter, (Fareham)


Fowler, Rt Hon Norman
Lord, Michael


Fox, Marcus
Luce, Richard


Franks, Cecil
MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire)


Fraser, Peter (Angus East)
MacKay, John (Argyll &amp; Bute)


Freeman, Roger
Maclean, David John


Gale, Roger
Maginnis, Ken


Galley, Roy
Major, John


Gardiner, George (Reigate)
Maples, John


Gardner, Sir Edward (Fylde)
Marland, Paul


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Marlow, Antony


Glyn, Dr Alan
Mates, Michael


Goodlad, Alastair
Mawhinney, Dr Brian


Gower, Sir Raymond
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Greenway, Harry
Mayhew, Sir Patrick


Gregory, Conal
Meadowcroft, Michael


Griffiths, E. (B'y St Edm'ds)
Mellor, David


Grist, Ian
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Ground, Patrick
Miller, Hal (B'grove)


Grylls, Michael
Mills, Iain (Meriden)


Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)
Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon)


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Mitchell, David (NW Hants)


Hampson, Dr Keith
Monro, Sir Hector


Hancock, Michael
Montgomery, Fergus


Hanley, Jeremy
Moore, John


Hannam, John
Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)


Hargreaves, Kenneth
Moynihan, Hon C.


Haselhurst, Alan
Neale, Gerrard


Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael
Needham, Richard


Hawkins, C. (High Peak)
Nelson, Anthony


Hayes, J.
Neubert, Michael


Hayhoe, Barney
Newton, Tony


Hayward, Robert
Nicholls, Patrick


Heath, Rt Hon Edward
Norris, Steven


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Oppenheim, Philip


Heddle, John
Oppenheim, Rt Hon Mrs S.


Henderson, Barry
Ottaway, Richard


Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael
Page, Richard (Herts SW)


Hicks, Robert
Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil


Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.
Parris, Matthew


Hind, Kenneth
Patten, Christopher (Bath)


Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)
Patten, John (Oxford)


Holland, Sir Philip (Gedling)
Pattie, Geoffrey






Pawsey, James
Sumberg, David


Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth
Tapsell, Peter


Penhaligon, David
Taylor, John (Solihull)


Porter, Barry
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Powell, Rt Hon J. E. (S Down)
Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman


Prentice, Rt Hon Reg
Temple-Morris, Peter


Price, Sir David
Terlezki, Stefan


Proctor, K. Harvey
Thatcher, Rt Hon Mrs M.


Pym, Rt Hon Francis
Thomas, Rt Hon Peter


Raffan, Keith
Thompson, Donald (Calder V)


Rathbone, Tim
Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)


Rees, Rt Hon Peter (Dover)
Thorne, Neil (Ilford S)


Renton, Tim
Thornton, Malcolm


Rhodes James, Robert
Thurnham, Peter


Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)


Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas
Tracey, Richard


Rifkind, Malcolm
Trotter, Neville


Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey
Twinn, Dr Ian


Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)
van Straubenzee, Sir W.


Robinson, Mark (N'port W)
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Rossi, Sir Hugh
Viggers, Peter


Rowe, Andrew
Waddington, David


Rumbold, Mrs Angela
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Ryder, Richard
Waldegrave, Hon William


Sackville, Hon Thomas
Walden, George


Sayeed, Jonathan
Walker, Rt Hon P. (W'cester)


Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')
Wallace, James


Shelton, William (Streatham)
Waller, Gary


Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Wardle, C. (Bexhill)


Shersby, Michael
Warren, Kenneth


Silvester, Fred
Watson, John


Sims, Roger
Watts, John


Skeet, T. H. H.
Wells, Bowen (Hertford)


Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)
Wheeler, John


Soames, Hon Nicholas
Whitfield, John


Speed, Keith
Wilson, Gordon


Spencer, Derek
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)
Winterton, Nicholas


Squire, Robin
Wood, Timothy


Stanbrook, lvor
Woodcock, Michael


Stanley, John
Yeo, Tim


Steel, Rt Hon David
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Stern, Michael
Younger, Rt Hon George


Stevens, Martin (Fulham)



Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)
Mr. Ian Lang and Mr. Tim Sainsbury.


Stewart, Ian (N Hertf'dshire)



Stradling Thomas, J.





NOES


Abse, Leo
Boyes, Roland


Anderson, Donald
Bray, Dr Jeremy


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Brown, Gordon (D'f'mline E)


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Buchan, Norman


Ashton, Joe
Caborn, Richard


Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)
Campbell-Savours, Dale


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Canavan, Dennis


Barnett, Guy
Clark, Dr David (S Shields)


Beckett, Mrs Margaret
Clarke, Thomas


Bell, Stuart
Clay, Robert


Benn, Tony
Clwyd, Ms Ann


Bennett, A. (Dent'n &amp; Red'sh)
Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S.)


Boothroyd, Miss Betty
Cohen, Harry





Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.
McNamara, Kevin


Conlan, Bernard
McTaggart, Robert


Cook, Robin F. (Livingston)
McWilliam, John


Craigen, J. M.
Madden, Max


Crowther, Stan
Marek, Dr John


Cunningham, Dr John
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Dalyell, Tam
Martin, Michael


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (L'lli)
Maxton, John


Davies, Ronald (Caerphilly)
Meacher, Michael


Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'ge H'l)
Michie, William


Dewar, Donald
Mikardo, Ian


Dixon, Donald
Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)


Dobson, Frank
Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)


Dormand, Jack
O'Brien, William


Douglas, Dick
O'Neill, Martin


Dubs, Alfred
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Duffy, A. E. P.
Park, George


Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.
Parry, Robert


Eadie, Alex
Patchett, Terry


Eastham, Ken
Pavitt, Laurie


Ellis, Raymond
Pike, Peter


Evans, John (St. Helens N)
Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)


Fatchett, Derek
Prescott, John


Fisher, Mark
Radice, Giles


Flannery, Martin
Redmond, M.


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Rees, Rt Hon M. (Leeds S)


Forrester, John
Richardson, Ms Jo


Fraser, J. (Norwood)
Roberts, Allan (Bootle)


Freud, Clement
Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)


George, Bruce
Robertson, George


Hamilton, James (M'well N)
Rogers, Allan


Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)
Rooker, J. W.


Harman, Ms Harriet
Ross, Ernest (Dundee W)


Harrison, Rt Hon Walter
Rowlands, Ted


Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Ryman, John


Haynes, Frank
Sheerman, Barry


Healey, Rt Hon Denis
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Hogg, N. (Cnauld &amp; Kilsyth)
Silkin, Rt Hon J.


Home Robertson, John
Skinner, Dennis


Hoyle, Douglas
Smith, C.(Isl'ton S &amp; F'bury)


Hughes, Dr. Mark (Durham)
Stott, Roger


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Strang, Gavin


Hughes, Roy (Newport East)
Straw, Jack


Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)
Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)


John, Brynmor
Thomas, Dr R. (Carmarthen)


Johnston, Russell
Thompson, J. (Wansbeck)


Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)
Warden, Gareth (Gower)


Leighton, Ronald
Wareing, Robert


Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Weetch, Ken


Lewis, Terence (Worsley)
Welsh, Michael


Litherland, Robert
Winnick, David


Lofthouse, Geoffrey
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Loyden, Edward



McCartney, Hugh
Tellers for the Noes:


McDonald, Dr Oonagh
Mr. Brian Sedgemore and Mr. Jeremy Corbyn.


McKay, Allen (Penistone)



Mackenzie, Rt Hon Gregor

Question accordingly agreed to.

Ordered,
That the matter of the complaint be referred to the Committee of Privileges.

Orders of the Day — Defence

[SECOND DAY'S DEBATE]

Order read for resuming adjourned debate on amendment to Question [18 June]:
That this House approves the Statement on the Defence Estimates 1984, contained in Cmnd. 9227.—[Mr. Heseltine.]

Which amendment was to leave out from "House" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:
believes that the plans outlined in the Statement on the Defence Estimates 1984, Cmnd. 9227, avoid the real and fundamental issues relating to the defence and security of the United Kingdom; is convinced that the enormous and increasing cost of buying the Trident nuclear system from the United States will mean further cuts in, and a weakening of, our conventional non-nuclear forces; deplores the fact that the White Paper contains no initiatives to stop and reverse the escalating and dangerous nuclear arms race; and calls upon the Government to work within NATO for a change from its existing strategy to a strategy based on the no-first use of nuclear weapons, to cancel Trident and to remove all nuclear bases, including cruise missiles, from the United Kingdom.".—[Mr. Denzil Davies.]

Question again proposed,  That the amendment be made.

Mr. Speaker: I do not need to remind the House that we are starting the debate rather later than expected. As I have a very long list of right hon. and hon. Members who wish to take part, I think that brief speeches will be greatly appreciated by the House.

The Minister of State for the Armed Forces (Mr. John Stanley): In opening the debate yesterday my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State covered the main policy themes set out in the defence Estimates. Today I wish to focus on some specific aspects of central importance to Britain's defence.
I suggest that there can be only one logical and responsible starting point for the debate — a cool and dispassionate assessment of the potentially hostile military capabilities ranged against us. We cannot afford to take rhetoric, emotion or wishful thinking as our starting point. Although we must keep our eyes firmly fixed on the far horizon — on the firm goal of a world vastly freer of hideous weapons than it is today—we must start from a position of realism, hard experience and clear-headedness towards what is ultimately the most important responsibility of any Government.
The realities and the past experience are uncomfortable, but to ignore them is to take refuge in illusion. The historical reality is that since the second world war the military power of the Soviet Union has been used to deny political independence to no fewer than seven countries around her borders, including one — Afghanistan —within the past five years. The present reality is that there is concentrated in eastern Europe and the Soviet Union a combination of nuclear, chemical and conventional capabilities of awesome destructiveness. The present reality is also that, as stated in the defence Estimates, Soviet defence spending is some five times higher than the published figure and constitutes between 14 and 16 per cent. of GNP—about three times the NATO average.
Right across the entire spectrum of military capabilities — nuclear, chemical, conventional and whether front-line weapons or logistics or war stocks or command and control and communication systems—the unmistakable and totally consistent pattern of Soviet procurement is of numerical increases in most areas and significant qualitative improvements everywhere. Some people try to explain this by saying that the Soviet Union is merely responding to improvements in NATO's own capabilities, but this just does not stand up to examination.
The Soviets' military capabilities are vastly in excess of any conceivable purely defensive needs. In a number of key areas, although I acknowledge not in all, it is the Soviet Union that has initiated a major escalation. The SS20 by virtue of its range, mobility and speed of response represented a quantum jump in intermediate nuclear force capability. Similarly, the new SSX24 and SSX25 will give the Soviet Union the first mobile intercontinental ballistic missiles. She has built up massive stocks of chemical weapons, totally dwarfing those of the United States, which has neither increased nor modernised her own since the end of the 1960s.
Numerically, the Soviet. Union has the largest nuclear ballistic throw-weight in the world, the largest number of nuclear-powered submarines, the largest number of diesel-powered submarines, the largest offensive mining capability, the largest number of tanks, the largest number of artillery pieces and the largest number of combat aircraft. Those are the harsh, uncomfortable, distasteful realities about which we hear precious little, if anything, from Opposition Members, but they are realities to which the Government believe it would be wholly irresponsible to turn a blind eye and a deaf ear.

Mr. Gavin Strang: The Minister referred to the SS20 as a quantum jump beyond its predecessor. Does he agree that the cruise and Pershing 2 missiles which are being deployed in western Europe are also a quantum jump beyond the SS20?

Mr. Stanley: As the hon. Gentleman well knows, the SS20 deployment was well under way before the NATO deployment started.
While we hear little about the Soviets from Opposition Members, we hear a great deal about the Americans. It is extraordinary to Conservative Members that the Opposition can be so determinedly silent about the Soviet Union, whose weapons are targeted against us, and yet so determinedly hostile, it seems, towards the Americans, whose weapons fortunately protect us. That continual sniping at, and misrepresentation of, the Americans is profoundly regrettable. Happily, I am in no doubt at all that it is quite unrepresentative of the views of the British people as a whole.
If the Opposition really want to send American nuclear forces packing back across the Atlantic, as their amendment says, I can only say that they have learnt nothing from two world wars. They have learnt nothing of the dangers to Europe of becoming isolated from the United States, and they have not learnt that the security of Europe and of the United States is indivisible.
Of the Opposition's various policies, there is none more baleful than that of requiring American nuclear forces in this country to return home. That policy is illusory, inconsistent and hugely damaging in defence terms. It is illusory because it is justified on the ground that getting


rid of the Americans will enhance our security, when, in fact, it will reduce it. It is inconsistent because it is a policy of continuing to shelter under the American nuclear umbrella through our membership of NATO, while at the same time denying the Americans the ability to base nuclear weapons in Britain.
It would be hugely damaging, because the removal of American nuclear forces from the United Kingdom would not stop there. It would reinforce demands for the removal of American nuclear forces from other European NATO countries. It would also reinforce demands for, and in my view would lead to, major reductions in American conventional forces in Europe as well. The removal of both nuclear and conventional American forces from Europe would enable the Soviet Union to take a giant stride towards achieving its key political and military objective in western Europe—to undermine confidence in, to weaken, and if possible to sever the transatlantic Alliance.
The most important military fact of life in western Europe is that the American presence on this side of the Atlantic is the linchpin of our security. It is the one factor above all that gives credibility to deterrence, and it is the best guarantee of the continuity of our own free way of life, which is in such stark contrast to the very different way of life on the other side of that wall.
Without the American nuclear presence in western Europe, the temptation to the Soviets to resort to nuclear blackmail of the European members of NATO would be significantly greater, and there is no European substitute in sight for the 300,000 American servicemen in western Europe and their highly sophisticated equipment, coupled with the certain promise of large-scale further reinforcement from across the Atlantic.
Instead of knocking the Americans, it should be a matter of some relief—indeed, of appreciation—that the European members of NATO have as an ally a country with the biggest economy and industrial base in the world, one that has the same commitment to freedom as we do, and one that is prepared to regard our defence as its own.
I now wish to speak of our own forces, and shall begin with our nuclear forces. Most of the speeches in yesterday's debate were taken up with Trident, and I make no apology for returning to that subject today. The Government remain firmly committed to the Trident programme, because the arguments for Britain having an independent strategic deterrent—arguments which were accepted by previous Conservative and Labour Governments alike—are as compelling today as they have been throughout the whole of the Polaris-Chevaline era.
Britain's strategic deterrent gives our own country a key addition to its own defences. Our deterrent is valued both by the European members of NATO and by the Americans. As was well said in a previous debate:
The Navy, by using what Professor Martin has called 'the shrouding quality of the sea' is able to deploy a hidden dissuader of considerable importance to NATO's strategic deterrent not solely in terms of punch, though this cannot be ignored, but as much because it represents the only European contribution to NATO's strategic deterrent and underpins the multinational and interdependent nature of the alliance." —[Official Report, 9 March 1970; Vol. 797, c. 923–14.]
Those observations, as valid today as they were then, were made by a former Navy Minister arguing the case for

the Royal Navy's strategic nuclear role. The right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen) would do well to re-read his own speeches.

Dr. David Owen: Why is that?

Mr. Stanley: Yesterday I listened with interest when the right hon. Gentleman argued that Britain should have no independent strategic deterrent at all.

Dr. Owen: If the right hon. Gentleman read that into my speech, he must not have been in the Chamber. I made it perfectly clear that Polaris should continue until the end of its natural life. If, at the end of that time, it was necessary to consider a replacement, I outlined the form of that possible replacement — the deployment of Tomahawk cruise missiles, a strategic system with a range of 1,500 nautical miles.

Mr. Stanley: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for confirming what he believes, but he used the phrase, "if it is necessary". There is no commitment by the right hon. Gentleman to retaining an independent nuclear deterrent. As to the choice between Trident and Tomahawk, the alternative ways of replacing Polaris have, of course, been evaluated with very great care.
There is no doubt whatever that the most cost-effective way of meeting our requirement for an invulnerable, strategic nuclear system which would have an absolute deterrent value is through a submarine-launched ballistic missile.
It is claimed that if we have Trident we shall have to cut back on conventional weapons, but that, I suggest, misses the key point. The central question is not whether if we have Trident we shall have less to spend on conventional weapons—that is obviously the case—but whether the sum of money to be spent on Trident will be a better addition to Britain's and NATO's defences than the same sum of money spent on conventional weapons. That is the key question, and, as my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister recently stated in the House, our view is that the sum being spent on Trident will give us an amount of deterrence which we could not possibly get by spending the same sum on conventional weapons.
There was a lot of fairly fanciful thinking in the Opposition speeches yesterday about the supposed tradeoff between scrapping Trident and improving our conventional defences. Listening to some of those speeches, one could be forgiven for thinking that one had only to scrap Trident to produce an almost unlimited increase in Britain's conventional forces—a new armada of ships for the Royal Navy, a doubling of BAOR, swarms of extra Tornadoes, and the nuclear threshold being raised all along the central front. The reality is distinctly less dramatic.
All that we would be able to do by scrapping Trident would be to increase our conventional expenditure over the next 15 years by some 3 per cent. That is only a small fraction of the increase that we have already achieved since 1979. What sort of a deal is that? Do we really want to exchange a relatively small uplift in our conventional capability, spread over the next 15 years, for the permanent and irreversible loss of our own strategic deterrent, and for the equally permanent and equally irreversible loss of the only European contribution to NATO's nuclear deterrence? Our answer emphatically is no.
I suggest that the Tornado programme provides a useful point of perspective. In real terms, the Tornado programme is more expensive than Trident. It will give us 385 Tornadoes, delivered over 10 years. That is very welcome, but by way of perspective the Soviet Union's aircraft factories are producing about 1,000 new advanced combat aircraft every year. Not to proceed with Trident now would mean Britain unilaterally abandoning her nuclear deterrent. Happily, on this matter, the instincts of the British people appear to be much more soundly based than those of Opposition Members.
I was struck—indeed encouraged—by the results of the recently published "British Social Attitudes 1984 Report". People were asked two very interesting questions. They were asked, first:
Do you think that having our own independent nuclear missiles makes Britain a safer or a less safe place to live?
Only 28 per cent. thought it made Britain less safe, but more than twice as many, 60 per cent., thought it made Britain safer. Significantly, that 60 per cent. included not merely a majority of Conservatives, but a majority of both alliance and Labour supporters.
The second question was more sophisticated and the answers even more interesting. People were asked whether Britain should rid itself of nuclear weapons while persuading others to do the same, or whether Britain should keep its nuclear weapons until we persuade others to reduce theirs. Only 19 per cent. wanted Britain to rid itself unilaterally of its nuclear weapons, and a massive 77 per cent. wanted Britain to keep them. That 77 per cent. comprised the great majority of Conservatives, the great majority of alliance supporters and, once again, the great majority of Labour supporters.
We are in no doubt that, on the need to retain Britain's deterrent, the British people are right and the Government are right. The people who are wrong, I believe, are those on the Opposition Benches.

Mr. Gordon Brown: Does the Minister agree that a third question in the survey asked whether people wanted to retain American nuclear bases in Britain and that, by a vast majority, there was a rejection of the Government's policy, particularly with regard to cruise weapons?

Mr. Stanley: If the hon. Gentleman is referring to the cruise question, I agree that opinion is more equally divided. What I found interesting on the cruise question was that, despite the enormous propaganda campaign against it, and despite the apparent unanimity of the official Opposition on it, nearly one third of Labour Supporters want cruise to remain in the country.

Mr. John Silkin: What was the figure?

Mr. Stanley: I shall happily give the figures, if the right hon. Gentleman so desires. The question asked:
Do you think that the siting of American nuclear missiles in Britain makes Britain a safer or a less safe place to live?
On the Labour side, of those described as Labour partisans, 32 per cent. thought that Britain was safer by having American missiles in this country.

Mr. John Browne: Will my right hon. Friend verify that it was a Labour Government who asked for land-based cruise and American rockets to be based in this country?

Mr. Stanley: The position according to the published record— we do not know what went on in the non-published records and we will not know for some years —is that the previous Labour Government were firmly committed to INF modernisation in some shape or form.
I now deal with our conventional forces. As will be clear from the Estimates, our policy is to do all that we reasonably and sensibly can to strengthen our conventional forces while retaining our nuclear deterrent. I would suggest that our achievements in this area, at a time of world-wide recession, are pretty remarkable.
In this financial year we shall be spending over £2 billion more on defence, excluding Falklands expenditure, than would have been the case if we had simply left defence spending at the same level in real terms as it was in 1979. By 1985–86, again excluding the Falklands, the Government will have increased defence expenditure by nearly 20 per cent. in real terms. We have the highest defence spending as a percentage of GDP of any European member of NATO, apart from Greece, and we have the highest defence spending per head of all the European members of NATO without exception. Frankly, for the Opposition parties to criticise this Government of all Governments for insufficient expenditure on our conventional defences is simply ludicrous.
I listened carefully to the speech made yesterday by the right hon. Member for Devonport who has clearly decided that this is a promising time for the alliance to try to develop a punchy gloom and doom line on defence. The right hon. Gentleman's concern for our defences would have carried a little more weight if he had reminded the House that, when he was last speaking from this Box, defence provision was nearly one fifth lower in real terms than it is now.
I must put the right hon. Gentleman straight on one point. He claimed repeatedly that the Government are planning on defence expenditure actually going down in 1986–87. It is a misleading claim, because it is arrived at by counting in the Falklands addition. Falklands expenditure is, of course, declining by 1986–87, with the completion of the airfield, among other things. Excluding the Falklands addition, defence expenditure is not planned on the basis of any reduction in 1986–87.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: Is the latest estimate for the Falklands airport still £215 million?

Mr. Stanley: I answered a question about that a few days ago. The present estimate is as we stated previously, which is based on the figure which we have given previously in the House.

Mr. Dalyell: Is it still £215 million?

Mr. Stanley: That is the best estimate that I can give the hon. Gentleman as of now.

Dr. Owen: Is the right hon. Gentleman denying the figure in the public expenditure White Paper, confirmed by the Chief Secretary to the Treasury in a written answer of 13 March 1984, that defence expenditure for 1986–87 will be £15,590 million, taking the base year of 1982–83?

Mr. Stanley: As I said to the House, that figure includes the Falklands addition. The reason why I suggest that the claim made in the House yesterday is misleading is that it is not right to include the Falklands addition, because the Falklands addition is a one-off piece of expenditure involving major capital works, such as the


airfield, and, as will be seen in the White Paper, the Falklands addition is declining. Therefore, the proper way to ascertain whether the defence expenditure base is increasing is to do it on a Falklands-exclusive basis.
The one piece of common ground in the debate appears to be that our conventional forces should be strengthened. I suggest that the point of difference is that Opposition Members are latter-day converts to that policy — and latter-day converts with varying degrees of reluctance.
The record on expenditure on the conventional side could not be clearer. The 1974 to 1979 Government, which featured on this Bench the right hon. Member for Devonport, supported in the Lib/Lab pact period by the right hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Mr. Steel), managed to reduce defence expenditure by 4·5 per cent. in real terms over that period. In contrast, the present Government will have increased defence expenditure by nearly 20 per cent. in real terms by 1985–86. Since 1979, the Opposition have fought the 1983 election on a policy of slashing our conventional defences — a policy reaffirmed at their policy-making party conference last year. The Opposition had their opportunity to increase conventional spending in the 1970s, and they reduced it. We have our opportunity now, and we have increased conventional spending massively.
I want to conclude by referring to our arms control policies. The motion in the name of the Leader of the Opposition complains of a lack of initiatives in the Estimates to stop the nuclear arms race. It then proposes a series of one-sided disarmament initiatives — the scrapping of Trident, the scrapping of cruise and kicking out the Americans—which would not help to stop the nuclear arms race, but would materially reduce NATO's security.
It simply is not correct to say that the Government have taken no steps to try to stop the arms race—and not just the nuclear arms race either. It takes two to make an agreement. If the Soviet Union either will not come to the negotiating table or insists on maintaining a position of military superiority rather than equilibrium, the negotiating room for manoeuvre that is sensible and responsible is somewhere between very limited and non-existent.
There is no doubt, however, that if the Soviet Union is interested in balanced and fair measures of arms control and arms reduction, the negotiating field is wide open. There is also no doubt that the British Government are playing a positive and constructive role in those negotiations.
The START talks can be resumed at any time without pre-conditions and with the American offer for both sides to cut strategic ballistic warheads by a third lying on the table. The Soviet Union can return to the INF talks at any time, where the zero option—or, failing that, reductions to equal numbers of INF weapons at any level—lies on the table. At the Geneva conference on disarmament, the new United States draft treaty on banning chemical weapons world wide lies on the table, a negotiation to which Britain, since 1982, has contributed three important sets of proposals to deal with verification.
At Vienna, at the MBFR talks, NATO's important new proposals, made in April this year, to try to resolve the long-standing dispute about the size of Warsaw pact forces in eastern Europe also lie on the table. At Stockholm, at the European security conference, a comprehensive set of

confidence building proposals made by NATO—again, to which Britain made a significant contribution—also lie on the table. The Government are doing and have done all that they responsibly can to get balanced arms reductions talks moving.
The Government are not prepared to be irresponsible. There is a fundamental distinction to be made between arms control proposals that would preserve balance and thus maintain peace, and arms control proposals that would undermine balance, risk our security and ultimately jeopardise our free way of life. The Government will do their utmost to achieve progress with the former, but they will not embrace the latter, and they are right not do so.
The defence Estimates are both realistic and, in many areas, radical. They are realistic in acknowledging the scale of the potential military threat facing the West and also in responding to that threat. They are radical in the major strengthening of our defences being achieved and also in the management of the defence programme to secure greater fighting capability and better value for money.
This is not the time either for the full-blown unilateralism of the Labour party or for the half-baked unilateralism of the alliance. This is not the time for reneging on agreed NATO deployments or for giving our most important ally notice to quit. It is a time for keeping our hand on the plough and the furrow straight so that we do not jeopardise the peace with freedom with which we have been blessed these 40 years.

Mr. John Silkin: I congratulate the Minister of State for the Armed Forces on becoming a Privy Councillor. It is a great honour that is well deserved.
The Minister dealt ably and pleasantly with a very bad case. The White Paper begins with the twin assertions that for the past 35 years NATO alone has maintained the peace in Europe, and that
history shows that a nation that desires peace in freedom cannot simply rely on the hope that it will be left alone.
Despite the Secretary of State's endorsement of those assertions yesterday, neither of them has a sound historical basis — although there are other lessons that history teaches us, not least that what may be true of the last 35 years is no guarantee that it will be true of the next 35 years.
It is not the Secretary of State's subjective view of history that should influence us, but the experience of those who really know. After all, many of the Ministers and senior officials who have had day-to-day responsibility for Western defence have hardly left office before they are telling us that NATO's persistent reliance on nuclear weapons has created the very dangers that we are trying to avoid.
That applies not only in this country. In the United States there is evidence from, among others, Admiral Noel Gayler, who, until 1976, was the Commander-in-Chief of all the United States forces in the Pacific. There is evidence from Mr. Robert McNamara, the former Secretary of State for Defence, and from Professor McGeorge Bundy, who was formerly the special assistant for national security affairs to two presidents. The latter two people, together with George Kennan and Gerard Smith, wrote an article in April 1982, which, among other things, said:


The one clearly definable firebreak against the worldwide disaster of general nuclear war is the one that stands between all other kinds of conflict and any use whatsoever of nuclear weapons.
In our country, the same testimony has been given by former high officials in the MOD. We know about Lord Carver, and Lord Zuckerman has made his views clear in "Nuclear Illusion and Reality". He said:
What would be left of Europe and the USSR after an all-out nuclear exchange would not have been worth fighting for. Nor would there have been any justification for the price that the USA would have had to pay for coming to Europe's aid.
We had a warning only last week from Sir Frank Cooper, formerly the permanent secretary at the MOD. He urged the abolition of cruise and all battlefield nuclear weapons. But the one statement above all others that has influenced me most was that of Admiral of the Fleet Earl Mountbatten, who summed it up so much more starkly than anyone else when he said:
Wars cannot be fought with nuclear weapons. Their existence only adds to our perils because of the illusions which they have generated.
The other day, in a profound and witty contribution that some of us heard, the Secretary General of the Commonwealth, at a conference of the Council of Europe——

Sir John Biggs-Davison: I am sorry to intervene, but the right hon. Gentleman was leaving the lecture from Lord Mountbatten in which he said also that it was very important to keep a balance of nuclear military power on both sides.

Mr. Silkin: That does not affect what I quoted. Lord Mountbatten was saying that reliance on nuclear weapons was the very thing that was creating the danger.
The other day, in a profound and witty speech, the Secretary General of the Commonwealth, at a conference of the Council of Europe, referred to what he called the MEGO factor. MEGO stands for "My eyes glaze over". This factor is supposed to occur when a speaker produces evidence that — however true — the listener finds it difficult to assimilate. All politicians go on MEGO trips from time to time. When we refer to the dangers of nuclear war and use the same expressions—nuclear holocaust, nuclear annihilation or whatever—the eyes of the world may perhaps glaze over. Yet the scientific reality is more frightening than any words we could find in this House, and no country is now exempt from the dangers of nuclear winter.
A year ago I had a conversation with a leading Australian politician. He said that one of the factors that prevented people in Australia from taking the nuclear arms race as seriously as he would have liked was their belief that this was a quarrel between two superpowers in the northern hemisphere and that, even if the superpowers resorted to nuclear conflict, the Australians would be unaffected. The recent controvery over the British nuclear tests at Maralinga all those years ago has changed all that. For the first time, as the December issue of "Australian Outlook" pointed out:
Although there continue to be powerful constraints against a global nuclear war, the increasing tension and arms race between the US and the USSR suggest that some precautionary planning is required in Australia".
In other words, even in Australia, which regarded itself as totally immune from all this, the dangers have become manifest and people have begun to understand what is involved.
This has been amplified by the revelations of Professor Carl Sagan and his colleagues who, in a recent issue of Foreign Affairs, showed us clearly that, in the event of nuclear war, there will be no hiding place anywhere on the planet—any sort of recognisable life will be utterly destroyed. In case the professor and his colleagues are considered to be overstating their case, we have the words of Andrei Sakharov last year:
A very large nuclear war would be a calamity of indescribable proportions and absolutely unpredictable consequences, with the uncertainties tending towards the worse … All-out nuclear war would mean the destruction of contemporary civilisation, throw man back centuries, cost the deaths of hundreds of millions or billions of people, and, with a certain degree of probability, would cause man to be destroyed as a biological species".

Mr. Nicholas Soames: Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that the whole purpose of, and reason for, deterrence is to ensure that such an horrific scenario can never become a reality?

Mr. Silkin: Certainly that is the purpose. I do not complain about the good will behind people's views. What I was about to ask was whether deterrence will be effective. I am entitled to ask that question. I understand the hon. Gentleman's point.
Of course, I well understand that the rulers of both superpowers are perfectly aware of the risks they run and are in their own way genuinely trying to prevent the ultimate catastrophe. But they are going about it the wrong way. The trouble is that they think that they can settle the problem between themselves. That is why, despite much exchange of verbal abuse about their respective incursions into Afghanistan or Latin America, they are prepared to treat those actions as lying within their opponent's spheres of interest and refrain from intervening too much. The dangers lie in the disputed zones, in the middle east and in Africa—the zones outside the recognised spheres of influence. It is in those areas that the nuclear fuse might be lighted.
The United States and the Soviet Union are well aware of the dangers. But how are they to make contact with one another in order to avert them? They try to do so by shouting in the dark. President Chernenko calls for a "no first use" declaration to show that the Soviet Union does not want a nuclear solution. President Reagan speaks of the 20 million Russians who died in the second world war, when we were all allies, to show that he appreciates he Russian concern. But neither of them receives a constructive answer.
What is preventing a real detente is the fear that each side has that any concession made to the other will be regarded as a fatal token of weakness. It is vital, therefore, that there should be an independent mediator capable of bringing the two sides together—a mediator in whom they can both confide changes in their position without advantage being taken of them by the other side.
Unfortuntely, Britain — under successive Governments, I would accept—no longer occupies that central position, despite her prestige as a senior member of the Commonwealth and as a founder member both of the United Nations and of NATO.
Two related factors stand in the way. First, as a nation we have been unable to come to terms with the loss of great power status. The purchase of Polaris missiles gave us the illusion of being a superpower, but at an enormous cost to our conventional weapons budget. Now that the end of


Polaris has become a pretext for the beginning of Trident, with its ever-escalating cost, the falsity of this illusion is increasingly being recognised by a variety of experts.
The second factor is that the desire of Britain to possess nuclear weapons, despite the rhetoric, is not about deterring the Soviet Union from attacking our island—an argument that the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) has dealt with very effectively in recent speeches and articles. Our original reason was much more about influencing Washington than influencing Moscow. It was, to quote one of the most illustrious of Labour statesmen, about preventing Britain from going
naked into the conference chamber".
That excerpt from Aneurin Bevan's thinking has been quoted ad nauseam. What is not quoted so often is his qualification that if the policy of possessing nuclear weapons failed to give us an influence for peace the policy should be abandoned.
What Britain hoped for at that time was that it could bring the two superpowers together in a reversal of the nuclear arms race. Indeed, there was a spell in the early 1960s — I freely admit it — when Britain showed a beacon to the world in helping to bring the superpowers together to sign the 1963 test ban treaty. But that was in the early days. Now, despite our possession of nuclear weapons—indeed, I would say because of it—we are no longer able to have the influence that ought to be ours.
For years Britain has played no part in negotiations in Geneva or, when it was most needed, in START in Vienna. This is because the Russians now regard us as wholly in the camp of the United States, while the United States regards us as a poor relation—useful so long as we agree with the Administration's policy and a boring nuisance when we do not. The rest of the world simply does not find it credible that a nuclear weapons state can act as a bridge between other nuclear weapons states.
The White Paper recognises none of those dangers. On the contrary, it seems so full of self-congratulation that it cannot even understand that the situation between East and West is now more dangerous than it has ever been in history. What is missing from the White Paper is the slightest idea of what strategic influence the United Kingdom could bring to bear to encourage the superpowers to draw back from the brink. So others are now asking the question that Britain should be asking. Others have taken the initiative.
On 22 May this year, the leaders of India, Mexico, Tanzania, Greece and Sweden issued a joint declaration to all five nuclear power states. The declaration contained these words:
We will do everything in our power to facilitate agreement among the nuclear weapons states. We will continue to keep in touch with one another about the best ways and means of achieving this objective. We will be consulting with the leaders of the nuclear weapons states and with other world leaders as well as pursuing discussions through United Nations channels … There can be no assurance of safety for one side only. That is why we attach such importance to a halt in the nuclear arms race that allows for renewed talks on nuclear disarmament.
The five leaders offered their services as intermediaries to all the nuclear weapon states, but, of course, in particular to the superpowers. They called especially on the United States and the Soviet Union, but also on the other nuclear weapon states, to
halt all testing, production and deployment of nuclear weapons and their delivery systems

and to offer adequate measures for verification. The coupling of those two steps — nuclear halt and verification — in fact met the major concerns of the two superpowers.
The declaration was immediately welcomed by His Holiness the Pope, by the Secretary-General of the United Nations, by the Secretary-General of the Commonwealth, by the General Secretary of the World Council of Churches, by Willy Brandt, by the President of Argentina, by the Prime Ministers of Spain, Finland and Canada, and, in our own country, by Cardinal Hume, who has made a statement of personal support and encouragement. The Archbishop of Canterbury has also said that he is most encouraged by the initiative.
As far as the Governments of the nuclear weapon states are concerned, the United States' Administration were the first to reply. The State Department opposed the idea of a nuclear freeze. It must be said that that represents no change in its policy. However, the speed of the reply, the fact that the reply stated that
The US respects the sincerity of purpose and commitment to peace
of the world leaders who issued it, and discussions that have followed, give us some slight grounds for believing that the Administration would not be totally averse to the mediation of the world leaders.
The Soviet Union was slower to reply, but made a rather longer statement. After expressing the view that its own specific programme of measures would be the best way of moving towards peace—that will come as no surprise to any of us—it nevertheless went on to state that it would be prepared to co-operate in this matter.
The Prime Minister of the People's Republic of China, eight days after the initiative, stated:
The people of different countries [must] take their own destiny in hand … and co-ordinate their efforts to press the superpowers to end their dangerous arms race.
Here we come again to the unasked question in the White Paper—what should the United Kingdom's role be in the nuclear age? Judging by the response of the British Government on 24 May to the world leaders' initiative—not very much. The Government's response was:
We are fully aware that a nuclear holocaust, if it were allowed to occur, would be an unprecedented disaster for mankind.
I am glad they have got that far. It continues, and I can almost hear the Secretary of State saying this:
But it serves no useful purpose to induce a misplaced sense of panic or fear about the likelihood of this happening … The greatest contribution to preserving stability at lower levels of military force would be through the negotiation of balanced reductions in the levels of US and Soviet nuclear weapons.
What an answer. It mentions no other nuclear weapons at all. Faced with perhaps the most dynamic challenge of our times, the British Government opt out. The sad truth is that the British Government and Britain are no longer part of the solution. Britain has unfortunately reverted to the unsatisfactory role of being part of the problem; and, while it stays supine, the torch that Britain carried during that short period in the 1960s, when the world seemed to be moving towards detente, has now passed elsewhere.
The defence White Paper this year could have been one of vision and imagination. It could have seized the moment. It could have recognised that the world is living through the most dangerous part of its history. It could have put Britain back again along the path of world peace. It could have given hope in a world that is steadily getting


more cynical and desperate. But it did not. Instead, it repeated every cliché of the past five years. So far from answering the question as to what should the United Kingdom's role be in the nuclear age, it did not even ask the question.
Yesterday, the Secretary of State said:
The White Paper might have addressed those issues more fully" —[Official Report, 18 June 1984; Vol. 62, c. 43.]
He told us that, if he is still Secretary of State, he intends to do so in future years. Our task is to see that the generations yet to come will be able to live out those future years in peace. The challenge is not tomorrow; it is with us today. For that, if for no other reason—there are many other reasons—it is right that we should condemn the White Paper, and I ask the House to reject it.

Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: I am glad to be speaking in this important debate. I hope that the right hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Mr. Silkin) will bear with me if I do not take issue with him today, the first time that I am speaking here.
Maurice Macmillan, my predecessor, served his country, this House and his constituents with dedication and honour. He had a distinguished parliamentary career, representing first Halifax from 1955 to 1964, then Farnham, and then Surrey, South-West, from 1966. Among his positions in government, he served in the Treasury and was Secretary of State for Employment. He was a man of vision who was prepared to exercise independent views. Locally, he and his wife, whom everyone in the constituency knows as Katie, worked tirelessly for his constituents. He is greatly missed there and here.
It is a daunting task to follow in the steps of a Member of Parliament of such calibre. I share the experience of Maurice Macmillan of coming to this place to join a close relative. A difference that might be noted is that the hon. Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley), my close friend, is not Chancellor of the Exchequer—yet. That was the position that the then Harold Macmillan held when my predecessor made his maiden speech.
My constituency is an especially beautiful and essentially rural area, spread around the three well preserved old towns of Godalming, Haslemere and Farnham. Before the most recent boundary changes, much of it was admirably represented by my right hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Mr. Howell). A new hon. Member could not follow two more worthy and honourable predecessors.
Successive generations have been determined to protect and defend the environment and the character of the area. Their efforts benefit the 88,000 people who live there now, as well as the many who visit. Edmund Burke referred to a Conservative as having
the disposition to preserve and an ability to improve.
I hope in time, both here and elsewhere, to help to find solutions to the many problems that face the constituency. Among them are the needs for adequate roads, for greater safety and to avoid congestion, the question of the development of gas, the future of education and health services, the preservation of the countryside and the wide range of issues that face individuals and families. A Member earns respect and political credibility by constituency casework.
I shall be a vigilant campaigner, although perhaps not such a prolific writer on rural matters nor such a radical as William Cobbett, who was born in Farnham more than two centuries ago. Carlyle called him
a pattern John Bull of his century.
In at least two ways William Cobbett had a great deal to do with the present House of Commons. He began a series of reports of Parliamentary debates which we now know as Hansard. Mr. Hansard, his printer, later bought the publication from him. Cobbett was also a leading figure in the reform movement that produced the Reform Act 1832. He was elected to the reformed House of Commons, but he never felt at home here. Indeed, he died within three years of being elected. I aim to survive and serve for longer than that. William Cobbett joined the army at the age of 19, and within three years had been promoted to regimental sergeant major, which returns me to the subject of the debate.
Surrey, South-West has major links with the services and defence industries. The statement yesterday by the Secretary of State for Social Services announcing improved pensions for war widows will be welcomed. The practical guide "Selling to the Ministry of Defence", laying open MOD procurement policies, has been well received. Overcoming ignorance of procedures of procurement and reducing the undesirable advantage of established suppliers have been important initiatives.
The steps taken by the Secretary of State to open tendering at all levels of procurement and supply provide opportunities for many smaller firms which previously felt excluded from what can be a major source of business. The White Paper states that some 45,000 new contracts, many under £10,000, were placed last year by the MOD purchasing branches. Competition is often the best form of co-operation. It leads to better value for money. The Secretary of State reminded us yesterday that savings of up to 30 per cent. could be obtained by the simple process of competitive tendering.
We are in a period of transition and there is a tension between two ends that we are trying to achieve. One is breaking down subcontracts for outside tender and seeking more sources of supply, with the encouragement of competition, which provides opportunities for more domestic firms as well as being cost-effective. Secondly, we are looking towards the long-term need to establish longer production runs and move towards European — and, hopefully, NATO—common procurement.
As we make progress, I am sure that we shall look back with amazement at the waste involved in the different national standards and requirements. We need to move towards greater harmonisation—an inelegant word but a necessary process — in defence procurement. Imagine what the American army would be like if different divisions had different bullets or if neighbouring regiments had tanks with different motors. It would be laughable and wasteful, and obviously so.
Let us be absolutely clear at what our defence policies are aimed. It is the preservation of peace with freedom and security. For nearly 40 years this has been achieved in Europe. It is founded on a determination to preserve liberty and defend democracy. It is based not just on equipment, materials and men, but on a national political will.
This debate on the White Paper is a function of a free society, exposing Government policy to the process of scrutiny and the challenge of debate. What could be more


unnatural in a closed society such as the Soviet Union, which has shown a consistent contempt for its own people and citizens? As my right hon. Friend pointed out in his opening remarks, about three times the percentage of GNP is committed to defence spending in the Soviet Union, but there is no opportunity for the people there to question what is done in their name. A member country of the Warsaw pact does not have the freedom to leave the pact or act autonomously in the way that NATO members do.
Perhaps worst of all, the Soviets cannot tolerate the views of someone such as Dr. Salcharov — this was mentioned by the right hon. Member for Deptford—being put forward in public. They may have attempted, with limited success, to silence him, but he is only the tip of the iceberg of Russian men and women who have been banished or incarcerated for their political views. It is a brutal system demonstrating a disregard for human life and freedom, stifling all open thought and intimidating weaker nations.
There is a danger that we in this country may begin to take our freedom for granted. Rather than politically subversive versions of so-called peace studies, we should concentrate on preparing our young for citizenship, both national and world citizenship. It is important that the facts set out clearly in the White Paper are widely known. I want young people to know about the balance of forces mentioned by my right hon. Friend in his opening remarks. Why do the Russians have twice as many battle tanks as we have and 30 times as many offensive mines? Those questions should be asked. A visit to Berlin for every school leaver could be a salutary experience and could help more of our younger citizens to appreciate the significance and fundamental importance of defence policies to our nation. They need to understand that peace is not built just on good wishes.
Maurice Macmillan served his country gallantly in time of war. With others, he worked consistently for European unity in peace. Like him, I believe that our membership of the EEC consolidates and strengthens the democratic foundations of western Europe. It makes another war in western Europe unthinkable.
Many will share my regret at the disappointing turnout at the recent elections for the European Parliament. Debates may be less exciting than the drama of the battlefield, but the fact that 10 sovereign states are now committed to resolving their differences by force of argument rather than by strength of armament is a major achievement of this age.
On the first occasion when my predecessor spoke here as the hon. Member for Farnham, he warned against an
appalling willingness to put our future at risk just for the sake of making the present look better."—[Official Report, 9 May 1966; Vol. 728, c. 83.]
I believe that this debate, including, as it does, challenges to Government proposals and policies, will lead to successive improvements in defence decisions. That is the role of Parliament — proposal, discussion, debate, decision and then review.
For several decades there has been overall bipartisan support in Parliament on defence matters. I hope that Labour Members, now that they are better represented in the European Parliament—and perhaps French Socialist

Members of that Parliament will be able to influence them —will begin, once more in opposition, to support the policies which they long advocated in government.
Discontinuity is dangerous. It creates uncertainty in the minds of friend and foe alike. I have no doubt about the broadly based political support in the country for effective defence policies. Clarity, conviction and continuity are crucial to enable us adequately to discharge our national and international responsibilities in the furtherance and maintenance of peace.

Mr. Gordon Brown: My first and pleasant duty is to congratulate the hon. Member for Surrey, South-West (Mrs. Bottomley) on the quality and excellence of her maiden speech, which will be remembered as a highlight of this debate.
Although I did not agree with the points that she made, particularly towards the end of her remarks, it was exactly what a maiden speech should be — eloquent and thoughtful, independent and forthright, showing a breadth and depth of knowledge of her constituency, historically, geographically and socially. In paying tribute to her late predecessor, she reflected the esteem in which he was held by hon. Members in all parts of the House.
We cannot have failed to have noticed the connection between the hon. Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley) and the hon. Member for Surrey, South-West. Husband and wife teams are becoming more familiar in this Parliament. My hon. Friends and I hope that it will not inevitably be the case that husband and wife need vote in the same Lobby on all occasions. We look forward to hearing further contributions from the hon. Lady.
The dominant theme of this debate has been the concern expressed by hon. Members about the escalating cost of the Trident programme, a project which is unacceptably expensive, economically wasteful and militarily unsound. It is a project which, while escalating the risks of nuclear war, puts at risk the integrity of our conventional defences. It is a project the implications of which in cost and security are not fully disclosed in the defence Estimates.
Not only in Trident but in other areas, the defence Estimates are more remarkable for what they obscure than for what they reveal. They are less than forthcoming, in particular, about important changes now being discussed for the royal dockyards—proposals that affect the jobs of more than 20,000 civilians and are of far more consequence for our conventional defences and national security than the much discussed hat-swapping exercise affecting the status of a handful of senior officials in the Ministry of Defence.
I refer to the proposals for the privatisation of the dockyards contained in the report prepared by Mr. Peter Levene: proposals that have recently been debated at length by a committee chaired by the Minister of State for Defence Procurement, proposals that are now being examined by the Secretary of State, but proposals that have so far been hidden from the House. They involve the most radical restructuring ever of our naval dockyards, with grave consequences for the efficiency and readiness of our Navy. Yet those proposals have far less to do with improving efficiency in the royal dockyards than with implementing the Prime Minister's instructions to privatise at all costs.
In my view, those proposals will usher in a new era of disastrous industrial relations in previously harmonious


workplaces and will put at risk the jobs, career prospects, conditions of service, and Civil Service pensions of thousands of expert, loyal and dedicated civilians who would be subjected to the hazards of what would become a casual labour market.
What are Mr. Levene's proposals? First, it is proposed that key areas of royal dockyard work should be handed straight over to the private sector and be detached from the royal dockyards. Secondly, it is proposed that the running of the dockyards, including the refit of the Polaris nuclear submarines, be handed over to private sector companies on a franchise basis. Thirdly, it is proposed that additional privatisation be achieved by farming out a large share of the work currently done in the royal dockyards to private sector contractors.
The defence Estimates tell us nothing about those far-reaching proposals for privatisation. Nowhere in the two volumes of the defence Estimates is any reference made to the discussions or examinations now being carried out. At no time has the Minister appeared before the House to inform us of the appointment of the committee and of the advisers who are examining the proposals. At no time have Ministers volunteered to the House how expensive the draft proposals for privatisation are. Instead, Ministers seem to wish to present us with a fait accompli without giving us a Green Paper, an open invitation for evidence to be submitted, a Select Committee examination or any proper parliamentary scrutiny of the decision and the means by which it is to be reached.
The Government are being secretive, because they have much to be ashamed of. Last July, my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline, West (Mr. Douglas) and I were told that the numbers working in Rosyth dockyard would increase. In December, I was promised that there would be new investment, more apprentices and a full workload for the dockyard. As late as Easter, the same assurances were being given. Now we find that those promises are conditional. Recruitment, investment and training will go ahead only if the recommendations of the Levene report do not.
On what evidence is the Secretary of State proceeding to make such drastic changes? All that we have to justify those proposals is a six-page report from Mr. Peter Levene, which is only 4,000 words long, and is based on only four weeks work and on only a few hours spent visiting the Rosyth and Plymouth dockyards. Yet that report seeks to overturn the recommendations of every review of dockyard management since the second world war, and to destroy centuries of dockyard tradition and service. It is a six-page flimsy report that asserts rather than demonstrates any case for privatisation, but yet proposes privatisation in the three different ways that I have described.
There is nothing in the Levene report or in any ministerial statement to suggest that privatisation would bring any benefits to the dockyards, the Navy or the country. There would be no savings to the public sector borrowing requirement, as under the Levene proposals all new investment would remain the responsibility of the state. Even more importantly, no one — neither Mr. Levene nor any Minister — can show that the prices charged in the private yards would be lower, that the quality of work in the private yards would be superior, or that our submarine and warship refits would be carried out more expeditiously.
I have with me a Ministry of Defence document that was written at almost exactly the same time as Mr. Levene was preparing his report. It says that the price for a refit in a private sector yard can only be
fixed as the work emerges".
The study said of private firms:
it is difficult for them to submit realistic tenders".
If the Government do not know whether private yards would be cheaper, or more cost-effective, if they cannot expect them to submit realistic tenders and if the final prices can only be fixed as the work emerges—if, in other words, the Government are writing a blank cheque to private industry —why why have they already made up their mind about the benefits of privatisation?
With no evidence, and in contradiction of all previous expert reports, how can the Government insist that privatisation will save the taxpayer money, guarantee efficiency or anything else? Indeed, surely Ministers are aware that a previous Under-Secretary of State for Defence Procurement in a Conservative Government, when asked his views about the relative efficiency of the dockyards and the private sector, clearly stated:
the most obvious comparisons are wholly in the royal dockyards' favour".
In the mid-1970s, the Chief of Fleet Support had to report of a similar exercise
the commercial refit cost us something like 25 per cent. more than if it had been done in a Royal Dockyard".
Such a conclusion was confirmed as recently as 1980, when the Speed report had to conclude:
the comparison moved in favour of the dockyards the larger and the more complex the project became.
If there was any evidence that the private sector was cheaper or more cost-effective, we would have heard it by now. The truth is that there is no national or international evidence for that assertion and no evidence to support the view that handing over the dockyards on an agency or franchise basis to a private contractor would yield any benefit to the nation. Every serious, respectable study of the matter during the past 20 years has clearly concluded that there is no evidence to support the agency proposal being advanced.
In 1971, the Mallabar report was quite clear when it said of a proposal similar to that of Levene:
it was the way to get the worst of both the commercial and the government department worlds. We would certainly not recommend it for the dockyards".
In 1980, during the lifetime of this Government, the Speed report said of such a scheme:
the disadvantages are that the management would have little incentive to make itself more efficient while the usual justification for an agent is that he has the resources and skills of the parent firm to fall back on. In the case of the dockyards the reverse is more likely to apply. We do not therefore favour this option".
What has changed since the reviews of the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s? Is it the Navy that has changed or the dockyards? I submit that it is the Conservative party, and the Front Bench in particular, that has changed, as it blindly pursues the myth of free market competition at public expense.
If the Government are to reject the advice of admirals, naval experts, and senior officials, and if they are to overturn all the available evidence, both internationally and nationally, at whose command are they acting? The author of the new proposals, Mr. Peter Levene, is well known in the international arms world. He is chairman of the company that sells £25 million-worth of arms to this Government every year. Indeed, he sells arms to 50


regimes throughout the world. He is also vice-chairman of the Defence Manufacturers Association, a pressure group for the private sector of the arms industry. He has retained all those interests while advising the Secretary of State.
Why is the Secretary of State inclined to accept Mr. Levene's advice and overturn that of all the recognised experts in this field? Mr. Levene is not known for his expertise in dockyard or naval matters and is certainly not known for his expertise in security issues, although I suppose that it must be said to his credit that he took four weeks out of his doubtless busy schedule to prepare his report, including one or two hours spent visiting Rosyth and Plymouth dockyards. However, that does not seem to have given him much respect for a scheme of management which in his eyes has only one outstanding feature, which is also its principal shortcoming—that it is not run by the private sector.
For Mr. Levene, the dockyards are wrong by definition and can be put right only by applying the dogma of privatisation. I understand that, despite his pressing commitments, Mr. Levene has offered his services as a ministerial adviser for no direct remuneration. But when I asked the Secretary of State, who is not in the Chamber, for assurances that Mr. Levene, his companies, or the Defence Manufacturers Association of which he is vice-chairman would not benefit financially from the proposals that he has made, he could not give me that assurance.
Advisers, even temporary advisers, with backgrounds in sales of arms should be above suspicion — in the manner of Caesar's wife, rather than the Prime Minister's son. Never before has the commercial sector so penetrated the higher echelons of Government administration and, with more that £20 billion-worth of public assets in the shop window, never before have a Government had so much to offer their friends in the private sector.
Considerations of commercial advantage are to take precedence, according to Mr. Levene, over considerations of national security. At no point in the Levene report is consideration given to the national security implications of what he proposes, to the implications for policing the Official Secrets Act, and to the readiness of the Fleet if the dockyard were to fall into the hands of multinationals or foreigners. This is a matter that the Speed report identified as one of the major problems. Is it not the height of Conservative hypocrisy that trade unionists lost their right to trade union membership on the pretext of national security, but considerations of national security are now to be subordinated to those of commercial advantage?
The workers at Rosyth dockyard and other dockyards have a wider conception of what is in the national interest than this Government. They know what would happen under a private contractor. Rosyth dockyard rose to the challenge of the Falklands campaign, responded with speed and flexibility to the unprecedented stream of requests from the Navy, working flat out, manager and worker alike, to do everything asked of them, and in record time. Would a private contractor, floundering in the first few months of a four-year contract, have done half as well? Would a firm, at the end of its time, wanting only to get out, have been inclined to try? If refitting nuclear submarines and keeping the Navy at sea were as simple as running a hamburger stand, Mr. Levene's franchise methods might be worth some consideration. Those who care for the royal dockyards and the Navy know better.
There is justifiable anger among thousands of workers in Rosyth and Plymouth. It is anger at the uncertainty that has been created, at the inferior conditions of working that would result from the Levene proposals, at the redundancies that would ensue and at the dispersal of a skilled work force whose loyalty is a crucial asset to our national defences, especially during emergencies.
Those of us who said in the last election campaign that the blind pursuit of privatisation would destroy dockyard jobs whereas Labour's non-nuclear defence policy would not are being proved right. If these privatisation proposals were accepted, the Secretary of State for Defence would become nothing more than the Secretary of State for Defence of the private sector. Those who understand that what is good for a few entrepreneurs is not necessarily good for the Royal Navy, those who recognise that the national interest is more than the sum of the interests of the private parts of the economy, those who have a wider and deeper concept of what patriotism is than Ministers will fight these short-sighted, doctrinaire and frankly unpatriotic privatisation proposals. In doing so, we shall have not only the loyal, efficient and expert work forces of the dockyards behind us, but the whole country.

Sir Antony Buck: I hope that the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) will forgive me if I do not follow him in the detailed and difficult subject of the dockyards. I look forward to hearing what my hon. Friend the Minister has to say about this in the wind-up. No doubt it would be more appropriate for us to go into dockyard matters in greater detail when we have, as I hope that we shall, an individual Navy day debate.
It is a pleasure to be speaking in this debate, particularly as I have had the advantage of hearing the maiden speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Surrey, South-West (Mrs. Bottomley). She made, as one would expect, an elegant speech, which was particularly appropriate for a Member for her constituency, because her predecessor, to whom she referred in elegant terms, was a regular speaker on defence matters. I am chairman of the Conservative party defence committee and her predecessor was a constant attender of, and contributor to, that committee. It would be great fun to have my hon. Friend also as a regular attender to that committee in future. The House will congratulate her on her speech, which was full of sound sense, and appropriate for one following in the footsteps of such a distinguished Member of Parliament. We hope to hear from my hon. Friend on many occasions, giving us the benefit of her wide experience in many spheres.
The right hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Mr. Silkin) made an interesting speech, and I look forward to my hon. Friend the Minister dealing with it in due course. However, one of the main points that I find puzzling in the attitude of the Opposition is their approach to the nuclear issue, on which the right hon. Gentleman touched. Why was it that, when in government, they thought it appropriate to update our Polaris weaponry? Polaris submarines are getting old now and it is not credible, as some SDP Members suggested, to go on running the Polaris force ad nauseam.
Even 10 years ago, when I was Navy Minister, they were sound, but there were difficulties in their maintenance. When a boat gets above 20 years old, as


Polaris is now, a great deal of money has to be spent, and some of that money was spent by the Labour Government. Not only was our Polaris force maintained by them, but it was updated. One of these days, I hope that the Opposition Front Bench will deal with the reasons behind the Labour Government doing that. They had the opportunity to phase out the force, but they did not do it, and went so far as to update the nuclear force. They must have done so for reasons that they thought sound, so why are the same reasons not applicable today?

Mr. Edward Leigh: It may be re-selection trouble.

Sir Antony Buck: That intervention may be a little cynical, but there is some element of truth in it. I hope that in the Opposition wind-up this problem will be tackled.
This is the second day of the defence debate, and I was able to be in for much of the debate yesterday, although I had long-standing engagements and was not here throughout. We had an extraordinarily good day's debate yesterday, with some splendid speeches, particularly from the Conservative Benches. I know that I am prejudiced. There were, however, contributions of nearly equal merit from the Opposition Benches, although not from the very Back Benches. I have yet to hear the hon. Member for Houghton and Washington (Mr. Boyes) make a speech that is in accordance with the harmony that there so often is across the Floor of the House on defence matters. His defence policy is epitomised by the colour of his shirt and socks, which are red. His defence policy would be that which exists in certain Scandinavian countries—to send a telegram saying, "I surrender". Fortunately, that is not the official policy of his party, although it may be of some of its members.

Mr. Roland Boyes: I should like the hon. Gentleman to explain exactly what he meant by his last remark.

Sir Antony Buck: The hon. Gentleman can read it in Hansard tomorrow. If he has any difficulty in understanding the remark, I shall be glad to interpret it for him. I think that he will find that what I said was clear. If he has any difficulty in understanding it, I shall examine the record myself and make whatever explanation he may think necessary.
The debate started in the traditional way, with the Labour party putting forward its policies and going away from its past commitment to any reliance on nuclear weapons. In the next speech from the Opposition Front Bench, we should like to hear further about their avowed policy to see total withdrawal of all nuclear bases from this country. I find it difficult to see how they will negotiate this appropriately with our NATO allies, and with the Americans in particular. Do they think it a courageous attitude to say that our NATO bases will not be nuclear, while continuing to shield under the umbrella of the United States of America? That is not the most gallant of attitudes to adopt.
A question asked during yesterday's admirable debate was whether it was appropriate for us to maintain our numerical commitment to 55,000 men in BAOR. Doubt was expressed about the commitment, but my hon. Friends indicated that they have come round to a belief in the commitment, and so have I. I thought that the figure of 55,000 was perhaps pitched too high, and that, so long as

we maintain a substantial commitment on the continent, it might be appropriate for us to orientate our defence effort more towards the maritime.
Having been to the northern flank and to the central front, I now think it would be wrong not to maintain the 55,000 commitment, but we are bearing a considerable defence burden. We maintain 55,000 troops in BAOR; we have a paramount role in the naval sphere; and we also make a substantial effort in the air.
The Government should put pressure on our NATO allies for a fairer sharing of the burdens. That is illustrated by table 4 in volume 1 of the White Paper, which shows the proportion of gross national product spent on defence by the various NATO countries. In Greece, for reasons which are special to that country, the figure is 7·1 per cent. For the United States of America it is 6·9 per cent. We are next with 5·4 per cent. Then there is Turkey with 4·9 per cent. and so on. In Germany, the figure is 3·4 per cent.
Here are we maintaining, rightly, a very important maritime role; we are maintaining a nuclear deterrent as well through our submarines which, in the normal course of events, are deployed to NATO. Why should we pay so much more than our German or other allies?
The same point is causing certain comment, to say the least, in the United States of America where the contrast with what Europe does is even more stark than is the contrast with what we do compared with the rest of Europe. The time has come for the Secretary of State for Defence, the Foreign Secretary and all senior members of the Government, including the Prime Minister, to put proper pressure on our NATO allies to see that the burdens of defence are spread more evenly. The United States of America is taking a similar view about the unequal burden that it has to bear. It is particularly important that the Americans are reassured that we are willing to play our proper part in defence. The decoupling of America from the Alliance would be disastrous for it.
Some of us have just come back from a symposium originated by the Supreme Allied Commander, Atlantic, on seapower, called Sea Link. It was held in Annapolis. There a certain restiveness was obvious because the Americans feel that we in Europe are not playing our proper part in the defence of Europe and the West. It does not apply to us so much as to our continental brethren. I hope that our Government, together with the Americans, will try to ensure that the other countries in NATO step up their defence effort with a view always to getting disarmament talks going again. A legitimate point has been made. We want an indication of what pressure we are putting on the Russians to come back to the negotiating table for another round of START and the MBFR talks. We must counter the belief in unilateralism. We will never get these mutual and balanced force reduction talks or get any progress with START if the tough top men in the Politburo see us unilaterally giving up our arms. There should now be an initiative on the part of the Government to try to get these talks going again.
In the coming years I hope that we shall see a recasting of NATO to work towards the abolition of the geographical boundary. It does not make sense to have the Northern Tropic as the boundary of NATO. It is riot, however, practical politics to have an immediate alteration.
Lord Carrington will be taking up the post of Secretary General of NATO any time now, and NATO's gain will be this country's loss. I regard him as being perhaps one


of the more serious fatalities of the Falkland Islands affair from the point of view of his "domestic" political career. He is much missed in home politics. As I have said, our loss is NATO's gain, and he will do a great job there. He has a difficult man to follow in the great Dr. Luns.
Perhaps it is not inappropriate to pay tribute to the work that Dr. Luns has done, because he has been a great friend of this country. He was at the symposium in America to which I referred. There is no doubt as to his enormous affection for this country, nor about the value he has been to the Alliance and this country, especially in settling disputes, particularly those involving Iceland. We look forward to an interesting time in NATO. I am sure the whole House would wish to join in sending the best of good wishes to Lord Carrington in taking up his job and in thanking also Dr. Luns for what he has done over the years.
Going from the broad horizon to a more domestic note, the greatest burden that our armed forces have to bear on an ongoing basis, to use the dreadful jargon, is the commitment in Northern Ireland. It may be appropriate for us to hear further on that from the Front Bench in due course. I do not think any armed forces but ours could sustain such a burden. They are living in difficult conditions all the time, being stoned sometimes and shot and killed, too. They have sustained that burden over many years. I hope that a tribute will go out to them from both sides of the House for the work that they are doing in Northern Ireland.
The Minister should perhaps say something about the new pattern of deployment in Northern Ireland. I think we have got it right with fewer battalions doing rotating tours for about four months, which hardly gives them time to collect intelligence. There is a larger number of resident battalions now. It is appropriate in any defence debate that a fulsome tribute should be paid to the work that our troops are doing in Northern Ireland.
Our forces are held in the highest esteem throughout the world. This was enhanced by their superb performance in the Falklands. The way in which they bear great burdens in Northern Ireland is also admired very much by everyone in the United Kingdom.

Mr. Russell Johnston: I should like to associate myself with the remarks that have been made about the maiden speech of the hon. Member for Surrey, South-West (Mrs. Bottomley). She made a speech of charm, fluency and humour. If it is not too chauvinistic a remark to make, I might point out that she has a great advantage over her colleagues from the point of view of an hon. Member who must perforce, because of the shape of the Chamber, spend all his time in it looking over at the other side of the House. I say that with great respect to the hon. and gallant, or legal or something, Member for Colchester, North (Sir A. Buck).
I also observe that the hon. Lady is something of a philosopher. She attempted to give us her concept of Conservatism, a challenging thing in itself. I think the expression she used was, "conserve and improve". I recommend to her my personal patented definition, which

is that Conservatism is a consensus of prejudices moderated by remorse. Experience will show that I am rather more accurate than she was.
There has been much reference already, both here and in the debate in another place, to the failure of the defence White Paper to spend much time considering what one might call the other side of defence—the need to look continually for ways to achieve arms control and the need to evaluate the appropriateness or otherwise of proposals such as a freeze and nuclear-free zones. The Government have not paid much attention to the general approach to disarmament or the kind of strategy that they bring to the talks in Stockholm and Vienna. Indeed, although we know in outline the sort of objective that the Government wish to see reached at the Geneva conference, that, too, is only fairly superficially dealt with in the White Paper.
The second main criticism that people have raised across the board, as well as hon. Members on both sides of the House, is that Britain is over-committed in her defence obligations. Certain consequences obviously follow from that. The third defect is the absence of any appreciation of the need for a more effective and collective European influence within NATO and how that can best be achieved. I do not think that the anodyne paragraphs on pages 4 and 5 of the defence Estimates, which are outlined in blue for some reason, are any substitute for that.
Time is short, so I shall comment briefly on only two matters, over-commitment and the effective European influence within NATO. The House knows from our amendment on the Order Paper that the alliance takes the view that the essential priority must be to raise the nuclear threshold and to concentrate much more on developing our conventional forces within Europe.
The Minister suggested that scrapping Trident would make only a limited contribution. I question this. So do others. For example, the hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Speed), who was involved in the initial decision to order Trident, has clearly changed his mind. The hon. Gentleman has an honourable record in the House and speaks out clearly for what he believes in. He is very knowledgeable about these matters. He wrote earlier this month in Jane's Defence Weekly that he had come to the conclusion that neither the United Kingdom nor the Royal Navy could afford Trident. That argument is very strong. It is not just an alliance argument. The cost escalation is evident. The original estimate of £5 billion has already doubled. I know that some of that increase is due to currency fluctuations, but that does not alter the fact. Then again, there has been some change in the original estimate of how much work would be done within the United Kingdom, with a reduction from about 70 per cent. to about 50 per cent. Not many offset orders have come in. There has been Rapier, but not too much has been coming back. All those factors should be taken into account when considering the Trident programme.
There is the additional burden of the Falklands defence, which is a new factor within the British budget. The defence will cost £1·2 billion over the next two years, and that inevitably further distorts the picture.
We would argue that now is the time for a political initiative on the Falklands. Leaving that aside for the moment, there are two points of substance: first, that the cost of Trident is so excessive that it is a distorting factor and, secondly, that the Falklands is a distorting factor. The Government are not facing the fact that, although they are apparently overtly committed to building up our


conventional defences, many people argue that those two considerable factors will make it impossible for the Government to do as much as they should.
The Minister's description of alliance defence policy was peculiarly inaccurate. He described us as half-hearted unilateralists. Certainly our view is that to proceed with Trident is incompatible with training and equipping adequate conventional forces, but if the United Kingdom believes in NATO we should surely be concerned with strengthening the Alliance where it is weakest — in conventional defence—rather than wasting our precious and limited resources on purchasing a prestige weapon.
At the same time, we are adding yet more to the existing surfeit of nuclear weapons. In that sense, the cancellation of Trident could result in the strengthening of NATO and would make the defence of the United Kingdom stronger rather than weaker.

Mr. Richard Ottaway: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that to spend money on a system that is recognised by defence experts as ineffective is the biggest waste of money of all? By that I mean Polaris, which all the experts say has become progressively more ineffective over the years.

Mr. Johnston: Yes. I would not replace Polaris, if it were up to me. We have consistently taken that view, as I am sure the hon. Gentleman knows.
On Europe, I shall quote Dr. Henry Kissinger's penetrating remarks. He wrote recently:
When one country dominates the alliance on all major issues — when that one country chooses weapons and decides deployments, conducts the arms control negotiations, sets the tone for East-West diplomacy and creates the framework for relations with Third World — little incentive remains for a serious joint effort to redefine the requirements of security or to co-ordinate foreign policy.
The predominance of the United States within the Alliance has concerned many people who are very far from being anti-American. There is no doubt that under President Reagan resistance to America has become much more outspoken in Europe. It has been largely a question of the thrust of the President's military policies, and what has been perceived, fairly or unfairly, as a half-hearted approach to disarmament.
When one remembers that the American view of the Alliance as seen by John F. Kennedy was of an Alliance with twin pillars, one sees that we are in a very different position now. Consequently, Europe must learn to speak and act together on disarmament and security, difficult though that is. We find it difficult enough to get on with the European Economic Community, far less on what is in the end a much more sensitive touchstone—the whole matter of defence. Nevertheless, unless we get this sorted out, we shall not be able to have a constructive influence on the United States.
The hon. and learned Member for Colchester, North touched on that point. He did not exactly put it like this, but I am sure that he meant that we could hardly expect — I am putting it more felicitously than the hon. Gentleman—to be able to exercise any sort of benign influence upon the United States if the United States in turn is of the view that we are not making an adequate contribution to our defence and depend too heavily upon it.
If one argues that Europe should play a more active role in her own defence, the question is how that should be done. Clearly it would not be in just one area, as the

European Community, the NATO Council of Foreign Ministers, and even the Western European Union all play some part.
The Government must be aware that the prize is not just the capacity to exert influence over the United States, although that is a considerable prize, but it is also the opportunity for European industry to supply a new generation of standardised weapons, and the whole economic spur existing within that. If the United Kingdom is to play an effective part in such an approach, that would mean a commitment to working with our European neighbours on foreign policy, procurement and standardisation of equipment, as well as on integrated defence policy and the promotion of European unity.
That brings me back to Trident. We would have to recognise that the possession of a so-called independent deterrent, to be expensively acquired from the United States, which will not be committed to NATO, does not contribute significantly to the Western deterrent, but impedes both European unity and disarmament negotiations. The independent deterrent is, in fact, a blatant piece of unilateralism. It is a unilateral act in itself. The Liberal-SDP alliance believes that the view that we have put forward in our amendment represents a balanced and constructive way forward for Britain within the Western Alliance.

Dr. Keith Hampson: There is a silver lining to every cloud. I regret not being in the Ministry of Defence, but that enables me to welcome freely and wholeheartedly the Secretary of State's White Paper. It is genuinely innovative and a positive contribution to strengthening the effectiveness of our armed forces, particularly chapter two on the management of defence. This is the first time that it has been dealt with, and it is long overdue.
In the White Paper, my right hon. Friend has highlighted how he has moved 5,000 men from the tail of the fighting teeth of the armed services in Europe. He has improved the capability of our naval forces by about 20 per cent. for emergencies, and any other national or NATO commitment that we might face, simply by keeping eight ships which were due to be mothballed and two frigates which otherwise would have been scrapped.
I also welcome, very much from a constituency point of view, the creation of an extra Challenger tank regiment. That is first-rate news for the nation's defence, and particularly for jobs in Leeds and the safeguarding of jobs at the royal ordnance factory. I hope that Ministers will persevere in the tremendous efforts that they have already made to get foreign orders for what is the best tank in the world, although it is costly. I trust that foreign orders will come as a result of ministerial efforts and that jobs will be safeguarded in the city of Leeds.
Yesterday some of my right hon. and hon. Friends seemed to join in the exercise of debunking my right hon. Friend's reorganisation of the Department. It is long overdue, and he must press ahead with it. Many of the criticisms, even from noble Lords who used to be Chiefs of Defence Staff, seem to be based on not having read the document "MINIS and the Development of the Organisation for Defence".
Before people start attacking the proposals, they should know what they are about. The scale of the increase in defence spending that we have undertaken— from the


time we came to power to 1986 it will be 23 per cent. in real terms—cannot be justified unless we ensure that we are getting the best value for money. Those increased resources should not go into more bureaucracy or more top brass for the Ministry. They should go, not into the system, but into the fighting effectiveness of our armed forces.
In the MOD system there is duplication. Bands are trained separately in each service, as are the catering staff. There are separate dental hospitals and false teeth factories. There is overmanning at the centre, with too many high-ranking officers doing essentially clerical jobs. There is not only duplication, but a blurred line of accountability. There is a pressing need for co-ordination of advice on strategy and of military operational priorities. Each of those things should not be done separately under each of the service chiefs as well as at the supervisory level of the CDS. In the end, three or four proposals go to the Secretary of State so that he can make a choice. I cannot imagine a system that is less productive and less efficient at getting the right priorities at the end of the day. Therefore, all power should go to the elbow of the Secretary of State if he perseveres with that reorganisation. It is what the public want.
This matter is dealt with in "MINIS and the Development of the Organisation for Defence", but the criticism of the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber (Mr. Johnston) and others is that in the "Statement on the Defence Estimates 1984" we have not gone into the issue of disarmament and where the arms race is going. We should applaud the fact that, for the first time, the Secretary of State is establishing an arms control unit within the Ministry of Defence. In other words, there is a separate source of advice on arms control and disarmament measures from that in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office in Whitehall.
Whatever that Department's view of the world —some people have strong feelings about that—it can only be beneficial that the best advice is given to the Secretary of State for Defence, who is at the forefront of the nuclear battle — not the Foreign Secretary — who faces demonstrations and who has to argue the case for and against the nuclear deterrent. Given the state of nervousness of the public and people in Europe, it is crucial that the Secretary of State for Defence has the best possible advice to convince the public that, in arguing for nuclear defence, the Ministry and the Government are totally committed to ensuring that the arms escalation process is slowed and that eventually all sorts of nuclear weapons are removed or their numbers reduced.
One of the problems with the traditional method of arms control is that stockpiles of hardware and innovations may be controlled by the numbers game which we have tended to play, but that in turn encourages the development of software innovations. For instance, we have seen the Americans intercepting warheads in space. In a sense that is a counter-productive measure and is increasing instability in the relationships between the great powers. We must consider that matter closely.
What is needed is not just the numbers game, but broad diplomacy and an attempt to build up the element of trust between the two superpowers, where there is less trust than ever, and to seek agreement on a wide political framework, not just on warheads or launchers. No one

wants to see the Americans out of Europe. No one wants Europe to be independent, in policy, of the United States. However, that is not to say that we in Europe should be subservient to American policy and interests. There is a pressing case for people, not just in Europe, but in this country, to act. Our Prime Minister should take an initiative with the Soviet Union. No one is better placed than my right hon. Friend, because the Soviets seem disinclined to talk to the Americans. The process of negotiation should begin, rather than each side maintaining this ratchet of rhetorical abuse.
The Trident issue dominated the debate yesterday. It is fashionable for leading articles in the The Guardian, The Times, even the Daily Express and the Daily Mail, and even for many of my right hon. and hon. Friends, to go into the business of knocking Trident. It all comes down to the fact that it is easy, given the nature of long-term defence procurement, to build up a "worst case scenario" when one can hypothecate beyond the year 1986. One can say that we might be level-funding defence, or, if the right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen) is correct about false inflation factors, that there might be less expenditure on defence, but that is a long way off. Coincidentally with that reduction or stabilising of expenditure, there might be extra expenditure on more submarines, new aircraft replacements, more ships and so on. Those might be the peak years for the impact of Trident on equipment expenditure.
It is argued that, therefore, something has to give, but two points are overlooked. One is that the basic problem of Trident has been not just the exchange rate, but inflation. Why do we concentrate on the inflation factor for Trident and forget about it for other equipment? There are the same pressures on all defence equipment, and budgets outgrow the estimates.
Opposition spokesmen say that in the key years at the end of the decade Trident will be a crippling burden on the equipment budget. The hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber said that the Trident programme would distort the defence budget. Will it do that? At its peak — on average it will amount to 6 per cent. of the equipment budget—at the end of the decade it will account for 10 per cent. of the budget. What is distorting about that? We are just past the peak of Tornado's impact on the equipment budget. Which of my right hon. and hon. Friends or which Labour Members have been conscious of the distorting effects of the Tornado programme on defence equipment expenditure? However, Tornado is demanding 16 per cent. of the defence equipment budget while Trident, at its peak, will account for only 10 per cent.

Mr. Kevin McNamara: rose——

Dr. Hampson: I would rather not give way to the hon. Gentleman, as I said I would make a short speech.
What is marginal expenditure and what is not? There is inter-service rivalry and some want more service men on the front line, while others want more ships, more submarines, improved aircraft capability and new missiles. Everyone wants more and better of everything that he can get. All service chiefs have in their forward programmes every conceivable weapon system on which they can get their hands if money is provided for them. We


cannot continue to expand the budget, which has increased by 23 per cent. in real terms from 1979 to 1986. Some programmes might have to give.
Why do we assume that Trident is on the margin? Why is it thought that it is the margin of expenditure that we should sacrifice? Trident is underpinning our entire defence strategy. Government after Government since the second world war have continued to ask, "Why should we assume in Europe, including the United Kingdom, that every American Administration will immediately commit themselves to risking American citizens and American lives in a counter attack to any conventional attack by the Soviet Union anywhere in Europe?" Why should they do that? It seems that there is an extra guarantee in our area of defence and that there will be uncertainty in the minds of Kremlin planners as long as the centre of decision taking at a nuclear level in Europe is separate from that in Washington.
It seems that defence planners in the Kremlin hypothecate all strategy and planning on the premise that the European powers will move quickly into a nuclear position. All their positioning and planning is based on that premise. Why should we allow the Soviet planners to have the easy option by removing the alternative which we currently have of a nuclear deterrent and permitting them to plan on the assumption that they will have a superiority of conventional weapons?
For all those reasons, it seems that we still require some form of nuclear defence. We have been reminded that Lord Mountbatten said that wars cannot be fought with nuclear weapons. Of course they cannot. The whole point of having nuclear weapons is to stop wars starting. If we do not have that ultimate deterrent, we have the risk of a conventional operation of some sort starting. It is the process of starting which leads the escalator into a nuclear response.
How would it look from the Soviet side if we cancelled Trident and had no independent deterrent? The Soviet Union would then see our new conventional response. If we spent the Trident money on conventional weapons, how would that appear to the Soviets? They would see for that amount of money—it would not be a huge amount—a few more tanks, some more highly sophisticated aircraft, a few more submarines and a few more ships. Do Labour Members seriously suggest that that would appear to be a much more credible deterrent to Soviet military strategists than the Trident programme? I cannot believe that it would. As I have said, what matters most to Soviet planning is the existence of a nuclear strike. If we are to preserve the peace, I cannot as yet see any credible alternative to a nuclear independent deterrent, and that means going for Trident.

Mr. Bruce George: I shall conform to Mr. Speaker's request for short or shortish speeches. The result of taking scissors to my rather longer speech is that it may seem to lack any uniformity of theme. However, those who listen carefully will find that there is uniformity on the Government's ineptitude in defence decision making.
It appears to be the vogue this afternoon to give definitions of Conservatism. It was Abraham Lincoln who said that a Conservative is someone who sits and thinks and mainly sits. Having heard the remarkable attitude of the hon. and learned Member for Colchester, North (Sir

A. Buck), it seems that a person's attitude to defence can be discerned from an analysis of his socks. That rather confirms Lincoln's analysis. I can see the most appalling pair of yellow socks on the Conservative Benches, which are being worn by the hon. Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle (Mr. Leigh). Litigation will obviously be a matter of course over the next few days.

Mr. Leigh: The colour of my socks does not sum up my political thinking.

Mr. George: My socks are blue.
The White Paper stresses competition, which is a theme that ran through the evidence of the Secretary of State to the Select Committee on Defence. It is a theme which runs through what he has been saying over the past few years. It is stated in the White Paper that competition is vital for achieving the best value for money, the most efficient use of industrial resources and the stimulation of innovation and new ideas. That is why I was surprised and delighted when I heard of the Government's decision to purchase Challengers from the royal ordnance factory at Leeds. Does the spirit of competition apply to that purpose? Thankfully, it does not.
We are all aware that the tanks that have been ordered are those which the shah did not require. Is the decision consistent with the policy which the Secretary of State has been shouting from the rooftops? Is this yet another example of the left hand not knowing what the right hand is doing, or is the Secretary of State fattening up the royal ordnance factory at Leeds as a prelude to a profitable sale to the highest bidder in the months ahead?
I have said many times that I believe in the public sector production of armaments, with that sector working alongside the private sector. It is regrettable that the Government have decided almost to obliterate the public production of armaments. I was a member of the Standing Committee which considered the privatisation of ordnance factories. That is one part of the long journey in which we shall take part, other parts of which will be the privatisation of the dockyards and the shipbuilders. It is unacceptable that the Government intend to create a monopoly in the production of weapons of war within the private sector when the public sector has been involved in that production for many centuries. It has been producing armaments efficiently and cheaply and I believe that the Government are taking ideology and dogma to excessive limits in their decision to privatise further.
When I consider the proposed privatisation of British Shipbuilders, I wonder what is going on with the Government. It seems that once again they have got their Nimrods in a twist. The twin pillars of Conservatism—privatisation and competition—appear to be in conflict. There is a clash of principles. There are those in the Government who would like to see British Shipbuilders flogged off and the creation of a monopoly within the production of warships. That would be the most profitable solution for the Government. Secondly, there are those who believe in selling off British Shipbuilders and creating competition. There are rival schools of thought within the Government and it will be interesting to see which will ultimately emerge the victor.
The defence White Paper contained a good deal about the Government's decision on the standby or mothball squadron. The way in which it has been presented gives the impression that the Government made a reasonably


rational decision and now, having had further thoughts on the subject, are abandoning the initial decision. What is the truth of the decision to reverse? When Sir John Non was in charge of the Ministry of Defence — his occupancy of that dangerous position was rather temporary—the rationale in his infamous defence review was that some of the ships currently in service would be put into the standby squadron from which they could be brought back into service within 30 days and crewed by shore-based sailors.
There was rationality in that process. That was the decision of the left hand, but the right hand was doing something different. It was reducing the number of shore-based sailors. Consequently, if the ships had been mothballed and manned by shore-based sailors, there would not have been the personnel ashore to man them within the time constraints which the Government would have imposed. Therefore, because the Government failed to find the shore-based personnel, they were compelled to keep the ships in active service.
I am delighted that the ships are not being mothballed, but I hope that people will realise that the Government's decision was not based on rational principles but, like many of the Government's decisions — despite the Secretary of State's magnificent organisational wall charts, which make his room look like an extended version of Cinemascope—was made for the wrong reasons. If reorganisation of the Ministry of Defence is necessary, it is at the political level and not the military or bureaucratic levels. The Minister smiles. He has the elixir of life in the Ministry of Defence, and has survived all the vicissitudes of that office. He is the Mikoyan of the Politburo, who has entered the Bermuda triangle of the Ministry of Defence and has flown on with success.
That brings me to air defence. When the Government were in opposition in the late 1970s they exacted much mileage about the alleged weaknesses of our air defence. When they came to office, they brought many quick fixes. We remember when the Lightnings were to be taken out of mothballs, and the arming of the Hawks with Sidewinders. That has been a painfully slow process. The Hawk is a great plane within the scope of its design. It may be a great morale booster, and it may inflate the figures for planes available for air defence, but we must put its role in a broad and realistic perspective because it has severe limitations. The greatest of those is that it lacks radar.
If the planes headed off in the general direction of the adversary, and were set against far more sophisticated planes, their inadequacies would be sadly revealed, with adverse consequences for the pilots. We should not place too much emphasis on the addition of Hawks to our air defence. They are useful for point defence, but the nature of modern war with fighter aircraft is that by the time the adversary is near the airfield its load will have been delivered, with lethal consequences.
Much has been said about Trident. However, the Government will face problems, because they cannot have both Trident and adequate conventional defences. The Secretary of State seems to believe that, by central reorganisation and by improving procurement, extra cash can be squeezed from the system and we can have an adequate conventional defence to match our enhanced

nuclear capability. History will show that to be grossly over-optimistic. Only a limited amount can be achieved through greater efficiency.
Many aspects of conventional defence are being sacrificed, despite what the Government say, because resources are going elsewhere. Our plans for identification friend and foe equipment are inadequate. We spend enormous sums on the purchase of sophisticated aircraft — between £14 million and £15 million apiece — and £2·5 million on the training of a Tornado pilot. We must ask ourselves whether we are getting the balance right. I have thought about this carefully, and believe that our lack of adequate IFF equipment is serious.
In a recent RAF exercise, many paper casualties, which could have been real casualties, were shot down. The number of planes shot down on our side was unacceptably high, and a large number of them were shot down by our own side. That brings a new dimension to the expression "shooting oneself in the foot" and to the concept of the fog of war. During that exercise there was a real pea-soup fog. Until we have adequate IFF equipment, we need to fear our own air force as much as that of our adversary. The Government will not wish to see the Few even fewer. Much work must be done to research, identify, purchase and place on our planes adequate equipment to improve efficiency and provide greater security for our pilots.
In conclusion, the White Paper contains little about arms control—possibly because little progress is being made in that direction. I hope that that will be reversed. We must do all we can to get the Soviet Union to return to the negotiating table, but not at any price. There must be negotiations. During the next few years much depends on the establishment of a better international atmosphere, with both sides recognising the resolution of the other to defend its interests. They must see the futility of military action against the other, and seek to preserve parity of arms. They must seek to find a compromise, and initiatives must be reciprocated. Only then shall we see greater security at a diminished cost. Only when our resources can be devoted to our respective domestic economies and to assist in resolving the critical problems of the North-South dimension shall we achieve some of our major objectives.
There are many problems, and many ways of proceeding towards improved East-West relations. Whatever route is chosen, it will be long and laborious. Confrontation is not necessary. We can strive for greater security. We must recognise that improved relations are a precondition for obtaining that security.

Sir Paul Bryan (Boothferry): As we have been asked to keep our speeches short, I shall confine myself to one subject—the Merchant Navy. The subject has already been powerfully dealt with by my right hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne (Sir H. Atkins), Chairman of the Select Committee on Defence, robustly supported by my hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Speed) whose knowledge of anything to do with the sea is unsurpassed in the House. I do not intend to repeat what they have said.
My right hon. and hon. Friends' complaint was not that the Merchant Navy had been found wanting. Far from it. When most recently called upon in the Falklands campaign, it went to war without question. The ships were made available immediately. Those involved at the beginning asked little or nothing about Government


powers, contractural conditions, and so on. The ships were needed, they went. The crews were needed, they volunteered. There were more merchant ships than Royal Navy ships in the operation. Co-operation between the two Navies was effective and apparently effortless. That, of course, was the result of well-established standing procedures.
Those procedures continue, no doubt improved by the Falklands experience. The numbers and types of ships required for direct support of military operations in the NATO area have been assessed by the Ministry of Defence, and there has been consultation between the Department of Trade and Industry and the General Council of British Shipping. The ships are not earmarked by name and the figures are classified. As is well known, the vessels required in support of military operations in the NATO area for transportation of men and equipment have been planned for some time. For this operation, the ships are earmarked by name and the plan is subject to regular review between NATO Governments and their ship owners.
So far, so good. But as more and more alarming figures showing the decline of the merchant fleet are published by the GCBS one is bound to ask whether the Government are satisfied that the availability of British flag or British-controlled tonnage is regularly checked against requirements and the specifications of such vessels vis-a-vis their military use regularly reviewed. One must also ask what assumptions have been made about availability, bearing in mind the positioning of ships for their commercial operations and the speed with which they could become available for military purposes.
There are signs that the supply of certain types of tonnage required for these various purposes is becoming very tight in terms of United Kingdom registered ships. Indeed, having regard to ships' positions and taking little account of attrition, it would already be difficult to meet some of the requirements. The Government seem rather complacent about the difficulties that might be encountered in securing the use of ships registered in the dependencies and those under foreign flag, but evidently controlled from within the United Kingdom. There may also be vessels under dependency registry which are not controlled from the United Kingdom and which, at a time of emergency, might be pulled back under neutral or non-friendly ownership.
One also wonders about manpower reserves and reserves of merchant seamen. In the past, on the outbreak of war, this country was always able to draw on a wealth of trained talent in the population among people who had been in the Merchant Navy at one time or another, but that reserve must now be dwindling as rapidly as the fleet itself is declining.
Throughout our history, especially through the last two great wars and the Falklands campaign, we have become so accustomed to the co-operation between the Royal Navy and the Merchant Navy that we have taken it for granted. As it has been so recently effective, it may seem churlish to ask whether it can continue. The Secretary of State, perhaps somewhat taken off balance by the questions put to him in the Select Committee by my hon. Friend the Member for Ashford, seemed to take refuge in the assumption that as he had heard nothing to the contrary all must be well.
The doubts that we are expressing in this debate are widely reflected in the shipping industry. Here I declare

an interest as a director of the Furness Withy group. At a time when, for obvious commercial reasons, the British merchant fleet is diminishing at an alarming rate in the face of competition, mainly from the far east, ship owners are mystified as to why the Government should choose his moment to deal a body blow to the industry through the abolition of capital allowances. As general fiscal policy it is sound, but I very much doubt whether its effect on the shipping industry was seriously considered. I imagine that the industry was probably judged as just another interest group, along with the film industry, cable television and the rest.
I concede that to qualify for exemption from the new tax regime an industry should have not only to make a strong case but to prove itself unique, and in the past the shipping industry has always succeeded in doing just that. Introducing the Budget of 1957, the then Chancellor of the Exchequer said that he could not yet make a general restoration of investment allowances. He continued, however:
But there is one exception that I propose.
He went on to describe the peculiar problems of the shipping industry and increased the investment allowance for capital expenditure on new ships. He then stated:
I must repeat that this is a unique step for a unique industry which is the life line of our country."—[Official Report, 9 April 1957; Vol. 568, c. 995–96.]
The time has surely come when the Government cannot put off much longer answering the thorny question, "Is shipping still the lifeline of this country, and if so, should not there be an expressed policy for its future?" Ship owners cannot be blamed for having doubts about the Government's position. Quite apart from the unexpected fiscal blow, the Merchant Navy is not even mentioned in the defence Estimates—an omission that was severely and rightly criticised in the Select Committee report—and there is no Government assistance to maintain any part of the fleet for military or emergency requirements. Our fleet has thus to compete with foreign flag operations which benefit from various kinds of tax assistance, or from protectionism, such as those described by Mr. Menzies Wilson in his presidential address to the GCBS, when he gave examples such as the Jones Act which protects the entire United States coastline, a Norwegian law requiring our supply boats but not Norwegian ones to take a pilot and a French rule that 50 per cent. of oil shipped to France should be shipped in French tankers. There are many more examples.
Personally, I should like the Select Committee on Defence to choose the Merchant Navy as a subject for special study. Some evidence might have to be taken in private for security reasons, but it would give much needed assurance to the public and to the industry that the role of the Merchant Navy is not taken for granted and that Members of Parliament are genuinely aware of its problems.

Mr. Michael Hancock: I thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for giving me the opportunity to make my maiden speech today. I come hotfoot from Portsmouth with a message for both sides of the House, but I should first pay tribute to my predecessors, Ralph Bonner Pink and Frank Judd, my constituency having been formed by the amalgamation of substantial parts of Frank


Judd's constituency of Portsmouth, North and the previous constituency of Portsmouth, South represented by Ralph Bonner Pink.
In Ralph Bonner Pink the city of Portsmouth and the House of Commons enjoyed the services of someone dedicated to public service. He carried out his duties with integrity and honesty and with great support from the city of Portsmouth. I knew him for 15 years. For much of that time we both served on Portsmouth city council. He is a great loss to the city and it is a tragedy that his death occurred such a short way into a term of office in this House.
Frank Judd served the city well as a Member of Parliament for 13 years. In the early part of my political life I looked to him for support and guidance and I learned a great deal from him about the politics of people. He was a fine constituency Member. As a politician in this House, I hope that I shall emulate the impression that Frank Judd made on me as a young local councillor.
The message that brings me to my feet was spelt out time and again by the three main candidates in the recent by-election in Portsmouth, South. The issue of defence was argued at public meetings, press conferences and on the doorsteps. It was done so by the Conservative party candidate, who had a difficult enough task, because in the past Portsmouth has been let down by the promises made in Tory party manifestos, particularly in the election material distributed on the Government's behalf in the city.
There were promises about defence jobs, a commitment to naval spending and a commitment to the defence industries of Marconi, Plessey and Vosper. For one reason or another best known to the Government, things have fallen far short of what was initially promised. Mr. Rock, the unsuccessful Conservative candidate, in his first or second press conference, gave an assurance that not one job within the Portsmouth dockyard or naval base would be lost through compulsory redundancy from October onwards. He said that he gave that assurance with the permission of the Secretary of State for Defence. I hope that the Minister will give a firm assurance from the Government Front Bench tonight to back up that statement on jobs and the threat to Portsmouth.
When Mr. Rock's predecessor sought election in 1979, he promised the city that no job would be lost in Portsmouth dockyard and that Portsmouth would be—as it is seen to be by the people of the city—the defender of the realm and the bastion of naval power. He assured the city that Portsmouth would continue to be the country's premier naval base. Yet within two years of that election promise, Sir John Nott was savaging not only the dockyard and naval base, but the defence industry generally in the city.
The people of Portsmouth need the assurance that I have requested of the Minister. They do not want it through newspapers or press conferences. It should be given here, where the responsibility lies.
The Labour party's attitude to defence also came up. Time and again its candidate went on record as to where she stood. She was a member of CND, in favour of unilateral disarmament, even in favour of NATO, but not in favour of American bases in this country or of cruise.
The real dilemma faced by the people of Portsmouth, South was the false promises of the Government candidate

on the one hand and the forked-tongue approach of the Labour candidate on the other. I am glad to say that those people saw the sense of the alliance's approach to defence. The defence policy advocated in our manifesto, both in this by-election and in the general election, was based on realism and a commitment to NATO. Not only did we say that we were in favour of NATO, but that we had a commitment to accept some of the responsibility that goes with belonging to NATO.
That meant that we welcome, as Portsmouth did two weeks ago, the NATO fleet consisting of a sizeable element of the American sixth fleet. The aircraft carrier Eisenhower paid its third visit in two years to the city, and the people of Portsmouth welcomed those sailors as fellow members of NATO and defenders of the free world. The commitment of the citizens of Portsmouth was spelt out loud and clear to those visitors.
Many of the people who voted for me saw through the shallowness of the Labour party's commitment, which is in favour of NATO but does not welcome American ships or bases in our country. The Labour party does not want the responsibility that goes with being a member of NATO. Instead, the people of Portsmouth whole-heartedly accepted where we stand. By accepting that responsibility, we also accept that those bases should be here. We accept that a nuclear deterrent is essential if we are to prove to aggressors that we have the potential to defend our people.
Defence and jobs are of key importance to my constituents. They would not lightly have forgiven me had I accepted this office without taking this opportunity to spell out to the House the problems that they face. They want an assurance from the Government that their jobs are safe, not only within the naval base but in the other dockyard-related industries around the city. They want to see Vosper Thornycroft thrive and look forward to a frigate contract being given to that company. They also want to see Marconi and Plessey continue to prosper.
I read the maiden speeches of my predecessors with some interest, particularly the speeches of those who were elected to the House in the 1960s. They described Portsmouth as a city with only one major industry—the dockyard. In the main, that is still true today, although the problem is now defence in its wider context. It is that from which the people enjoy their economic stability.
My election is a clear sign that the people of Portsmouth have rejected the two alternatives with which we are faced in the House today. It would be nonsense for the alliance to support the Government because of their commitment to Trident, which will undersell our ability properly to advocate conventional forces to defend our country. It would be equally foolish for alliance Members to support the Labour amendment, which is the complete opposite of what we stood for in the recent by-election—a stance that was whole-heartedly supported by the SDP and Liberal Members who came to fight the campaign.
I read with interest the Government's intention in the Estimates to do more for health, education and accommodation for the services, and I look no further than my own constituency to see how inadequate those provisions are for the people who depend so much on the Government for assistance. I again urge the Minister to look seriously at the Government's intentions on the welfare of service families and the well-being of the children of service men living in large garrison towns such as Portsmouth and Gosport.
When I rose to speak, I felt like Voltaire, who, when asked on his death-bed whether he would renounce the devil, said, "This is no time to make enemies." I suppose that a maiden speech is no time to make enemies, but the people of Portsmouth would not have been pleased with my election five days ago had I not taken the opportunity of telling the House of how they feel about the inadequacies of both the other parties on defence. I am living proof that a vote for the alliance in Portsmouth was a vote for sane defence policies that are based on realism and that are very acceptable to the electorate.

Mr. Nicholas Soames: I congratulate the hon. Member for Portsmouth, South (Mr. Hancock) on his maiden speech. It was a short time ago that I was in a similar position, and he surmounted that not inconsiderable hurdle with great skill. However, I must tell him that a number of his constituents, particularly the chief petty officers in the Royal Navy, would have been appalled to see him speaking with both hands in his pockets. The hon. Gentleman jumped in where angels might fear to tread, unfettered as he is by the traditions of the House. I congratulate him on a forthright, interesting and forceful speech, which I have no doubt his constituents will much appreciate. I assure him that the remarks that he made about his predecessors were appreciated by hon. Members on both sides of the House.
I am glad to be able to speak in the debate in which my hon. Friend the Member for Surrey, South-West (Mrs. Bottomley) has made her distinguished maiden speech, on which I congratulate her.
I am satisfied that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has the management of defence, in its broadest terms, under control. Few hon. Members are better equipped to run that great Department, and all of us may be thankful for that. I still have considerable reservations on whether the procurement budget is completely under control, but I am sure that my right hon. Friend and his colleagues have the matter well in hand.
If we are the prime customer of United Kingdom industry, we should be able to command the finest and most competitive terms from those companies, which in my opinion in many cases take their business with the Ministry of Defence as a God-given right. In short, I believe that the problem is not the management of defence, but the management of strategy. I know that my right hon. Friend and his colleagues have spent, and are spending, a good deal of time addressing this matter.
One of the questions which exercise me most centres on whether the impact of new technology on the strategy and on military art is evolutionary or revolutionary. I believe that the impact of these new technologies is revolutionary, but the key point is that it is not so much the existence of the new technologies which is critical as the recognition of the awareness of the impact of the new technologies on defence planning, what it means for us, and, above all, the decisiveness that will be needed to exploit these advantages. We welcome the benefits which the new technologies can give us, but we must not in any event allow ourselves to be hindered by the historic latent conservatism of the Ministry of Defence. We simply must have the capacity to change concepts, equipments, and, above all, the balance and the tasking of our forces if this is seen to be necessary.
Within this context, NATO has reached the point where the strategic assumptions upon which it has been operating, the force structures and the institutionalised concepts that it has generated, and the joint policy that it has developed are likely to prove inadequate to cope with the problems of the next decade. Time has moved on, and priorities have changed dramatically and will change in the global and broad strategic scene. This is the real problem in defence planning in the country and in NATO. I acknowledge that changes cannot and must not be made quickly, but time is not on our side, and the sacred cows, with which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is an expert at dealing, must be trotted out for parade and inspection and, if necessary, slaughtered and dismembered.
In respect of our own position, does the search for efficiency really lead to greater effectiveness? Our forces are highly efficient—that is not in any sense in question — and they are extremely effective, but are they effective in the right areas? Are they effectively and correctly tasked?
The White Paper, as far as I can see, contains no real sense of definition of strategic values. Will my right hon. Friend take time to explain to the House what exactly is our defence strategy in its broadest terms? This cannot be covered by generalities like the deterrent. This is not enough. Where exactly are we going with British defence policy? What view is taken of the new and emerging technologies which will have a dramatic effect on the armed forces of the country? How will new technologies replace or complement existing conventional military technology, strategy and the evolution of the military art? What is the definitive view in the country of battlefield nuclear weapons in the European environment? In general, what is missing from the White Paper is a political strategic dimension, although I say again without any hesitation that, in terms of looking for a better way of spending a lot of money, the White Paper has a great deal to recommend it.
I am sure that my right hon. Friend will not fall into the trap that some of his right hon. Friends in other Departments did of cutting in all directions without having thought through the long-term and essentially vital strategic implications. My right hon. Friend has an unenviable task. He will have to upset the services by the fact that one of them will do better than the others. That in itself is not a bad thing. He will have to upset us in the House—he has broad shoulders—he will have to upset public opinion, and he will have to upset British industry. It is fortunate, indeed, that he is so excellently equipped to undertake without fear or favour these kinds of aggravations. It is not enough to say that with proper management there is no need to make the kind of hard choices that must be examined. The inherent dichotomy between forward defence and flexible response must be resolved, or sooner or later it will rise and strangle our strategy and foreign policy,
Now is the time for a thorough review of NATO's structures and deployment, and within that context we cannot dodge the question of the force levels that we maintain in western Germany. Substantial pressures are building up on both sides of the Atlantic in a number of important areas, particularly with the news that the Americans could be seeking a reduction of 100,000 men on the ground in NATO.
Apart from that, the question of advancing towards no early first use as a NATO doctrine requires a host of strategic changes and decisions to be taken on the ground. In my opinion, that must bring into question one of the biggest sacred cows of all—the costly and financially destabilising Trident venture. The House should ask how we are to mesh our assets into any future European defence community, and we need a real assessment of whether the Trident programme will place a heavy reliance on nuclear overkill. As the main focus of our defence policy looks likely to continue, rightly in my opinion, to be on NATO, to which 90 per cent. of our defence effort is committed, the House should insist as a minimum requirement that a review is prepared, pulling together the entire 1967 concept, dissecting it and the progress that has or has not been made, and then dragging it a stage forward.
The objections to undertaking a comprehensive review of NATO strategy will be entirely bureaucratic. This will centre on the inadvisability of raising once again difficult and sensitive issues which have caused the Alliance many unnecessary problems in the past. Clearly these are arguments which cannot and must not be sustained today when the political and military relationships between East and West and the Third world are undergoing rapid and extraordinary changes.
It is, of course, excellent news that Lord Carrington, who has such considerable experience of foreign affairs and defence, will be able to shake off the caution, inertia and, I have to say, torpor which currently exist within the NATO organisation. In so far as the House is concerned, a thorough strategy review will not resolve the fundamental problems that we have, but, as to NATO, unless the defence planning is dealt with, the bases for the development of a force posture both adequate and affordable, and at the minimum level, will continue to elude us.
Looking to the future, all I can see is the certainty of uncertainty and the absolute requirement for flexibility of our defence forces. This House must and should demand a fuller and more definitive plan for defence strategy and objectives.

Mr. Ken Maginnis: I associate myself with the compliments paid to the hon. Member for Portsmouth, South (Mr. Hancock). He was worried that his candour might make him enemies in the House. I assure him that if he addresses himself in future with the degree of preparation and brevity that he exhibited tonight, he will make few enemies.
I also associate myself and my party with the congratulations offered to the hon. Member for Surrey, South-West (Mrs. Bottomley). I can do no more than echo her wish that her survival in the House will be long and productive.
It is almost a year since I made my maiden speech during the debate on the defence Estimates. Since then, the House has seen fit to elect me to the Select Committee on Defence. Some hon. Members justified my selection by saying that it was proper that the Committee should include someone who lived with the problem facing our security forces operating in Northern Ireland. Therefore, at the risk of appearing to be too parochial, I feel obliged to concentrate my few remarks on the security forces that

operate in the most unconventional of conventional roles—acting in support of the Royal Ulster Constabulary in the war against terrorism in that part of the country.
Paragraphs 126 to 129 of the statement deal with Northern Ireland and refer specifically to the Ulster Defence Regiment. The right hon. Member for Spelthorne (Sir H. Atkins) paid a generous tribute to those men and women when he spoke yesterday, and I know that his real concern for the welfare of the UDR will be appreciated.
Perhaps it is appropriate to point out that since 19 July last 11 off-duty members of the UDR have been murdered, as have 10 members of the RUC—four while off duty—six members of the RUC reserve—two while off duty—and eight regular soldiers—two while off duty. One off-duty member of the Territorial Army has also been murdered. All those men have died at the hands of Republican terrorists. It brings the total sacrifice of the security forces in Northern Ireland since 1969 to 719. None of those figures takes into account former members of the police and of the Army, many of whom have been and others still are being murdered.
The Secretary of State will understand, in the light of those figures, why I would have liked to see a full chapter devoted to the discussion of the role or our conventional forces. I am disappointed that there is no indication, after 14 years, that the Ministry of Defence has made any decision on the terms and conditions of service for full-time UDR soldiers.
The UDR is shouldering an increasing part of the burden of support for the RUC, which has allowed a reduction in deployment of regular major units from 26 to eight. But many of the full-time soldiers would revert to part-time if there were an economic recovery in the country—not because they are not dedicated to their task, but because they have no proper career structure, a factor that also inhibits the recruiting of the more able young men who would make good officer material.
As the right hon. Member for Spelthorne said, in addition to the strain of being at risk 24 hours every day, 365 days each year, those young men have the constant anxiety of wondering whether they will be permitted to re-engage at the end of each three-year term and whether, if the trouble ended—as they all hope it will—they will have a job. Indeed, any of those young men wanting to accept a more secure job now run the risk of being shunned by employers because they are a security risk.
I believe that the Barnett report deals with a career structure for the UDR soldier, and I am told that is in the hands of the Ministry of Defence. Can the Minister tell us whether the Secretary of State has looked at this problem and if and when the Ministry of Defence will establish a proper career structure for the full-time UDR soldier?
Another problem is minor in proportion, but highly sensitive. I would not seek to hide, nor would the Army, the fact that a few soldiers have committed, or allegedly committed, serious crimes. Let me make it clear that, while I deplore any infringement of the law by those whose job it is to uphold it, I find it none the less heartening that those lapses are surprisingly few considering the situation which has existed for the past 15 years. What amazes me is that when an alleged offence occurs, we allow our soldiers to be placed in custody cheek-by-jowl with members of the IRA, INLA, the Ulster Defence Association and the Ulster Volunteer Force. The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Armed Forces has told me that, where an offence allegedly occurs


that arises from a soldier carrying out his duty he could be accepted into Army custody; otherwise that could not be done.
Like Lord Justice Gibson giving judgment and Lord Denning commenting on the recent dismissal of a murder charge against three members of the RUC, I fail to understand how, in the first place, the law is so inadequate as to permit members of the security forces to be charged when they are carrying out their duty.
But even if they are believed to have acted outside the law and require to be charged, could one imagine any circumstances where, during world war 2, we would have incarcerated a serving soldier, irrespective of the alleged crime, in a German, Italian or Japanese prison camp, or, during the Cyprus campaign, with EOKA terrorists?
Lieutenant-Colonel J. C. Wakerley, who served for two and a half years as senior legal adviser on the staff of the GOC at headquarters Northern Ireland, recently wrote in The Times that he
argued continually but unsuccessfully against the policy of the Director of Public Prosecution's Office in this type of case to prosecute members of the security forces before the same special no jury courts which tried the terrorists, even on evidence which was tenuous in the extreme.
It is a well established principle under our system of law that a person should be brought to trial on a serious criminal charge only where there exists a reasonable chance that he will be convicted.
In the absence of any other convincing reason, it seemed to us in Northern Ireland that soldiers were prosecuted either simply to test whether their constitutional duty had been performed properly or—even more disturbingly—in order to demonstrate to the vested interests that the DPP's Office could be relied upon to be even-handed as between the forces of law and order on the one hand and the enemies of the state on the other … Our proposal at that time to allow the military authorities to exercise jurisdiction over soldiers by convening a court martial to try any case where the evidence justified a prosecution was rejected out of hand by the civil legal establishment"—
and, I believe, by the Northern Ireland Office—
although such procedure was routine where the army was engaged in similar anti-terrorist operations outside the United Kingdom.
I ask the Minister to examine carefully whether the interests of our serving soldiers are being sacrificed for reasons of political expediency by the Director of Public Prosecutions under direct, or indirect, influence from the Northern Ireland Office. In practice, should our soldiers, though rightly subject to the law, be subjected while on remand to physical attacks from co-located terrorists or humiliated by being locked in their cells for 23 hours a day, as they are at present, because they dare not venture out? Should the Ministry of Defence accept its obligation to our soldiers at least to seek military custody in remand cases so that our soldiers do not have to endure over 12 months virtual isolation—something that is not inflicted on terrorist remand prisoners?
I wish that I could deal more fully with other aspects of the conventional role of the security forces. I should have liked to deal with the MOD's facility to provide sufficient manpower to assess the increased competition which it hopes to engender in tendering. If I did, I think I would try the patience of hon. Members who wish to speak.
I hope that the Minister will take on board some brief points. Do the Government recognise the role played by the Royal Navy in support of the civil power in Northern Ireland as it patrols our coastline and performs other

duties? If we succeed in raising the level of security on our land frontier, the significance of that role will become even greater.
What plans are there to replace the outdated vessels on station in Northern Ireland, especially the two Loyal class converted tenders? Is the Minister satisfied with the adequacy and safety of the two other vessels—the Bird class patrol boats?
Will the Minister confirm that there is to be a genuine and sustained increase in frontier security to hinder the unabated flow of weapons and explosives and the continued genocide of my constituents? Four of the 11 off-duty part-time soldiers murdered this year were my constituents.
Will the Minister tell us how many helicopters are on deployment in the Falklands and how many in Northern Ireland? I mentioned that point last year. If anything, the situation is deteriorating. Our soldiers' lives are being jeopardised through lack of helicopter hours.
These matters may not appear to have the importance of other weighty topics raised today, but the welfare of all our soldiers will, I hope, be dealt with by the Minister in his reply. Nothing that we debate can have any significance without our highly professional forces, whom we too easily take for granted. Nothing in the Minister's reply will influence more strongly the way in which my party will vote today.

Mr. Patrick Thompson: I welcome the opportunity to speak briefly today. I should like to comment on the closing remarks of the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maginnis). I support him in emphasising the importance of the individual service man, without whom our defence forces are worth nothing.
I fully and whole-heartedly support the Government's plans to expand the Territorial Army. My enthusiasm for the Territorial Army stems from personal experience in two TA units in the years between 1959 and 1965, followed by further service with the cadet force.
On opening a kitchen drawer the other evening I discovered a copy of The Times dated 5 March 1970, which referred to a debate such as this. After six years of Labour Government, we were debating the rundown of the volunteer forces. Indeed, condemnation was being expressed of the deliberate nature of the rundown of the reserves
to the level where they are barely adequate to bring BAOR up to wartime strength, the disbandment of the Territorial Army in its old form, and the abandonment of almost any form of home defence.
According to that report, the TA was half the size that it had been in 1964, and civil defence and the auxiliary fire service had been put on a care and maintenance basis.
Fourteen years later, it is good to see that, according to the Estimates, the Government have recognised the importance of the volunteer spirit. I whole-heartedly welcome what my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence said yesterday when, in his opening remarks, he spoke of the increased emphasis on our reserve forces. I believe firmly in the role of the Territorial Army, the RAF auxiliaries and the Royal Navy and Royal Marine reserves, in addition to the Home Service Force and the cadets.
I believe in that role not only because of the importance of those forces in defence plans—contingency and other


plans—but because of the opportunity that they provide for people to serve the community, and also because of the way in which such service increases understanding of defence issues, weapon systems and the need to prevent the outbreak of war — something which we are all determined to avoid, and are working to avoid through realistic policies and actions.
In the second phase of the Government's expansion plans there are to be six new infantry battalions. I welcome that, although as an ex-infantry man I regret the fact that none of them is to be based in East Anglia. However, the leaders of the Territorial Army in Norwich and the surrounding area are pleased with the new plans and are welcoming them with enthusiasm.
I pay tribute to those in my constituency and elsewhere who give up time as volunteers in the Territorial Army and the other reserve forces. I pay tribute to their families and their employers as well—to those who support them in their endeavour. We should do all that we can to encourage employers who support those who give up their time to serve the community in this way.
I am informed that the recruiting for the Territorial Army in East Anglia has been good, although there has recently been a little downturn, perhaps because of the improved employment situation. Recruiting for the cadets is also going well—in particular, the recruiting of girls into the cadet forces, which is a welcome innovation.
The reserves cost very little in terms of the total defence budget. The return of that investment in terms of good will is excellent. However, today Territorial Army commanders are coping with an annual turnover of about one third of their manpower. That wastage must be detrimental to training. I believe that it is a mistake to try to obtain our volunteers on the cheap. Clearly pay and bounty must be a factor in recruiting volunteers and retaining them, at least in the early stages of their Territorial Army career. I believe that a more generous approach can and must be applied, and will produce benefits. I therefore support what my hon. Friend the Member for Davyhulme (Mr. Churchill) said yesterday. He expressed a wish for even stronger Government support for our voluntary services.
The Government have stated recently that the reserves deserve the full support of the whole community. They should have even greater support and commitment than is outlined in the Estimates. I assure my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State that the response to which he referred will be forthcoming. That will be good for the defence of Britain and good for the people involved.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: I ask the Minister to take heed of the speech of the hon. Member for Boothferry (Sir P. Bryan) on the issue of British shipping. Those of us who have anything to do with the National Union of Seamen and the General Council of British Shipping know that what the hon. Gentleman said about allowances is only too true. I shall cut my comments short and simply endorse what the Minister's political friend said on behalf of a great number of us.
Because the Navy Estimates, like, I gather, the Army Estimates and the Air Force Estimates, will have to wait until the autumn, perhaps I could ask a question in regard to annex C on page 46 of the White Paper. When did the submarine Conqueror commence its present refit and when

is that refit likely to be completed? Two years is a long time for a refit. I know that I cannot ask about the cost, but I think that I am entitled to ask for an explanation of why it is taking quite so long.
I should also like to raise a question concerning the use of the SAS satellite channel. I believe that a book that has recently been published, entitled "Sources close to the Prime Minister", deals with an issue that is important for all of us. On page 172 the authors, Cockerell and Hennesey and Walker, have written:
The reporter who identified most closely with the Prime Minister's view of his duty was Mr. Max Hastings. He faced almost no difficulties in getting his despatches through, while others — who took a more critical line — faced immense obstacles. A number of despatches to the Observer, the Sunday Times, the Guardian and the Press Association never reached their destinations at all. In contrast, Mr. Hastings was even allowed to use the SAS satellite channel to dictate a report direct —a unique privilege.
Is it true that that unique privilege was afforded to Mr. Max Hastings? If it is true, why was it afforded? If it is not true, ought not the Government to take steps to deny it?
We have been asked to be succinct, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Perhaps I might refer to my speech of Friday 8 June, when I kept no one else out by speaking for one hour and 15 minutes. I shall refer to that speech, so that others can speak today. At column 599, yet again, I asked for a governmental comment on the book by Bruce Arnold, which is published by the reputable firm of Hamish Hamilton, which has libel lawyers. It was said in that biography of the Prime Minister, entitled "Mrs. Thatcher: A study in Power", that
Margaret Thatcher told a lie. Just one.
I believe that the Prime Minister is under an obligation to do something about that as it is a biography of her. I shall leave my argument at that as the case was outlined in my speech.
At column 600 in the same speech, I asked for a Government comment, which was not given, on the allegations in "Sources close to the Prime Minister" in regard to the manipulation by the Ministry of Defence and other Government Departments of the Franks committee report. It is all there in column 600. I simply repeat the question.
In column 612, I asked a third question, which I shall now repeat: why have I not received answers to certain questions surrounding the sinking of the General Belgrano from the Secretary of State for Defence? The argument is set out in column 612. It is easy to give such answers as they can be got simply by looking at the log book of the Conqueror.
There is another important issue that many people who do not share my views on the sinking of the Belgrano agree with. It concerns changes in the rules of engagement. It was held by Admiral Woodward that he requested just one change in the rules of engagement. As I understand it, that is what Ministers have been saying for more than two years. However, we have all heard—it has been printed in the papers, so it is public knowledge — that the former Foreign Secretary, the right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire, South-East (Mr. Pym), pressed by the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs, talked in terms of routine changes in the rules of engagement — "a reasonable routine practice," said the right hon. Gentleman. He is quoted in The Scotsman of 12 June as saying:


This was one of the many changes in the rules of engagement made during the course of the war.
He said that such changes were
made as a matter of routine.
Professor Erickson and many other commentators have raised many eyebrows on this issue. It raises for the National Union of Seamen the safety of our ships. If Britain merely changes the rules of engagement on a whim, that has all sorts of consequences. Who is right? Are the Ministers who have spoken in terms of one or very few changes in the rules of engagement? Is Admiral Woodward or the right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire, South-East right? Someone is right and someone is wrong.
I wish to raise in a little more detail the matter on which I interrupted the Minister in his opening speech. It concerns the cost of the airport at Mount Pleasant. People now call it the Margaret Thatcher international airport in the south Atlantic. Are Ministers firm about the airport costing only £215 million? I understand from various sources that there are great stopgap problems in the provision of materials, that there are delays to the structure of the concrete that is needed for the foundations, and that that is raising all sorts of hitherto scarcely suspected problems that were predicted by some experts but were swept aside by the opinions of others.
I am told that the two quarries in the Falklands—one for quartzite and one for tillite—have proved deeply unsatisfactory. I am told that there are ribs of sandstone and clay particles in the sand that makes it technically extremely difficult to produce the quality of concrete that is required.
I am also told that the Government have therefore been faced with using ships to take aggregate on the 13,000 km journey, at a cost of about £1·5 million a time, to the south Atlantic.
They are taking rock and other heavy materials from the northern hemisphere to the southern hemisphere because nobody in south America will provide such materials and it is politically unacceptable to get it from South Africa.
Are the Government sure that the £215 million will be kept to? How many journeys do they envisage for the carriage of heavy material? Is it true that at least 300,000 cu. ft. of material for concrete will have to be taken from quarries near Oxford and Bristol through Avonmouth to the Falklands? Laings has gone on record as saying:
Many hundreds of thousands of tonnes of rock are needed for the contract, including material for the sub-base, aggregates for the dry lean mix concrete, and for the pavement quality and apron area concrete.
It has also been made clear that the tillite and quartzite is far more difficult to mine than the Amay Roadstone company had hitherto expected.
It has also been said that both the wintry conditions and the substantial quantities of clay that have been found, together with the quartzite containing bands of sandstone, have made it unreal to suppose that the Falklands can locally provide the materials that were originally taken for granted.
I am told that when it is made into concrete, the rock found locally on the Falklands becomes flaky and is, therefore, unsuitable for high grade concrete. I am also told that 0·5 million tonnes of sand is needed, as Falldands sand is unsuitable because it contains clay particles.
Is that denied by Ministers? I suspect that it may not be. To be fair, I asked similar questions of the then Labour Government some 15 years ago in relation to the proposed staging post at Aldabra atoll in the Indian ocean, on which

my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) and others were keen at the time. Bob Mellish told me two years later that the doubts that I had raised were amply endorsed in his Ministry of Public Building and Works, and the project did not go ahead.
All that I had said at the time about the nature of the material under the hard skin of coral atoll being unsuitable for making runways proved to be correct. If I was right about Aldabra 15 years ago, my track record cannot be that bad. I suspect that I am right on this occasion in relation to the building of the airport on the Falklands.

Mr. David Winnick: My hon. Friend is frequently right.

Mr. Dalyell: My hon. Friend makes a flattering intervention, for which I thank him.
I suspect that I am right, and, if I am technically right, there will be an enormous effect on cost in view of the fact that the Government are sticking to their estimate of £215 million for the airport.
I am also told that the six cement testers who are on the Falklands say that the quality of the material that they now have is too smooth and may break up completely given the Falklands winters and the pressure from TriStars and other heavy aircraft landing. Further, I am informed that the two large crushing plants are running into all sorts of difficulties and that the quality of the rock has proved much poorer than expected by the companies concerned in their original inquiries.
Why has Mr. John Parr-Burman, the airport project director, had to fly to the Falklands in a great hurry? Is it to evaluate a crisis? Some explaining must be done because, in answer to seven parliamentary questions—the details of which I will spare the House—I was told:
The 6,600 tonnes of graded aggregate is being transported from Bristol in the Orepesa and Beacon Grange as part of the contractor's normal shipping programme. Both vessels are British owned, managed and crewed and British registered. The aggregates, to the normal standards required for structural concrete, will be used at the Mount Pleasant airfield and were obtained from the Bristol and Oxford areas. It is not the practice to reveal costs for individual components of the work".—[Official Report, 8 June 1984; Vol. 61, c. 428.]
It may not be the practice to reveal costs for individual components, but I am entitled to ask these questions because, with the estimate of £215 million being adhered to, if half of what I have said in the last few minutes is accurate, the costs will soar. After all, we are talking about lugging extremely heavy aggregates, sand and other material from the northern to the southern hemisphere.
This state of affairs was not allowed for in the original plan. When it was decided that we needed what we might as well call the Margaret Thatcher international airport in the southern hemisphere, there was no suggestion that the carrying of such bulk would be necessary. I suspect that the silence of Ministers indicates—I will not say "as usual"—that, as often before when I have raised technical points about costs, I may be right again.
I do not know whether Ministers have been reading the Sunday Telegraph in recent weeks. When Mr. Peregrine Worsthorne, with whom I have debated this subject on several occasions—on separate sides, I hasten to add—writes an article headed
Argentina—why we should make peace",
it is clear that if the Government will not listen to Opposition Members, at least they might begin to listen to


the Sunday Telegraph when they are told that they must do something in the south Atlantic. For reasons of time, I shall leave it at that.

Mr. Alan Howarth: It was appropriate that the first day of the debate on the defence White Paper should have taken place on 18 June, the anniversary of the battle of Waterloo. Having sat through many long passages of rhetoric and having been much instructed yesterday, when I arrived home I looked at an admirable history of the battle by a namesake of mine to see what had happened on 19 June. I read that by late afternoon on that day,
not a single healthy soldier was left on the field. There were one or two sightseers, and a few dead Guardsmen lay among the cabbages and turnips.
I concluded that there could be no parallels between the situation at Waterloo and the situation in this Chamber. Certainly the Secretary of State would never regard his Back Benchers as an infamous army. Yet I read that
from time to time a figure would half raise itself, and then, with a despairing groan, fall back again.
Having been called to speak in the debate, I will proceed to more general matters.
The White Paper sets out impressive achievements. The emphasis in it on management bears very much the hallmark of my right hon. Friend and the Government are to be warmly congratulated on the political steadfastness with which they have proceeded to install intermediate nuclear weapons since this House debated the last defence White Paper. There can be no doubt of the will of the Government to provide adequately for the defence of the realm.
Yet the White Paper slides around or ignores some critical strategic questions of which I know the Government are fully conscious, and I share the regrets of some of my hon. Friends that the White Paper does not address itself to some of these issues. While Labour Members refer to "real and fundamental issues" which have been neglected, it is not the unilateralism to which they resort at the end of their amendment that I have in mind.
The White Paper is a lucid and reasonable account of NATO orthodoxy. It is a rationalisation of the status quo. But that status quo is not sustainable. We shall not be able to persist with the distribution of responsibilities between America and Europe in the defence of Europe to which we have been accustomed. The Americans will insist that the Europeans take a much fuller share of the burden of their own defence. Who is to say that that is not fair? Moreover, it will be necessary, because present dispositions are inadequate to meet the needs.
In America, increasing numbers of responsible politicians are no longer prepared to tolerate the disparity in expenditure on defence between their own country and the European countries. The White Paper gives the figures for per capita expenditure on defence. The figure for America is $962. The contrast with Europe is striking. Happily, the United Kingdom is at the top of the European league, spending $435 per head on defence, but then we range down through France with $396, to Germany—which is obviously, for historical reasons, a special case —at $364, the Netherlands $294 and Italy at $181.
American politicans ask why they should continue to be prepared to ask of their people that their whole economy should be laid under stress—and we might add, why the world economy should be laid under stress—so that they can spend disproportionate sums on defence while, very arguably, the Europeans are not pulling their weight. More specifically, questions are asked by senior and respected people, such as by Senator Nunn of the Committee on Armed Services. A month ago, he asked why, if the Europeans would not provide more than a week's worth of ammunition reserves, American troops should be asked to prepare for a contingency in which they might fight alongside them. Again, why will Europe not provide adequate bases for the aircraft that the Americans will contribute to the Alliance?
The Administration have no truck that I am aware of with those American politicians who contemplate a withdrawal of American troops from Europe. Indeed, the President excoriated them in a recent speech as "new isolationists", and drew attention to the disastrous consequences that had flowed from American isolationism in the late 1930s. But those isolationists exist. It is, perhaps, a burgeoning line of thought in America which will not go away, and we must be aware of it and respond to it.
Again, Americans resent what they take to be a supercilious and morally shifty attitude towards them on the part of many Europeans in failing to provide responsibly their contribution to their own defence. They resent the fact that too many Europeans rationalise their unwillingness to play their full part by characterising the Americans as naive and belligerent, and that Europeans place themselves in a rather priggish and morally cosy fashion between the two superpowers and suggest that one is as bad as the other. The Leader of the Opposition is a notable exponent of that approach.
The hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber (Mr. Johnston) referred to the very important article by Dr. Kissinger in Time magazine of 5 March. Dr. Kissinger spoke of Europe disarming itself psychologically, and suggested that a generation of politicians in Europe who had chosen, in a time of relative prosperity, to depend upon the Americans for the greater part of their defence displayed all the attitudes born of guilt—particularly a tendency to sneer and to flaunt their independence. He went on to argue that it would be necessary for the Europeans gradually to take full responsibility for certain key elements in their defence, particularly conventional ground defence. He suggested that the Supreme Allied Commander in Europe should be a European, and that Europeans should take the leading part in arms control negotiations relating to weapons stationed on European soil. In those ways he felt that Europeans might be impelled to confront the real issues that they are too prone to fudge.
Those are very important challenges that should be debated in the House. I hope that my right hon. Friends will increasingly respond to them in a public manner. I am, of course, glad and proud that Britain's contribution to European defence is right at the top of the league, that we have played a leading part in rallying European efforts, and that since 1979—under a Conservative Government —defence expenditure has increased in real terms by 20 per cent. I am also glad that we are willing to play our part in the reactivation of Western European Union as a forum


for the political consideration of the issues that underlie defence policy. The meeting of WEU in October will have an agenda of major importance.
One item on it should be an analysis of the doctrine of flexible response. The White Paper rehearses that doctrine, but naturally enough it does not criticise it or discuss its inadequacies. But given that we do not have, in NATO, the conventional strength to match or even effectively to deter a conventional attack, it is becoming increasingly apparent to thoughtful people that we shall face a choice of early surrender or early resort to nuclear weapons. In a situation of strategic nuclear parity, that implies mutual assured destruction.
Yesterday, the Secretary of State suggested that this element of uncertainty would continue to operate as an effective deterrent. That would be so if we were dealing with rational people. However, Hitler was not rational at any time, least of all when he invaded Russia in 1942. It is essential, if we are to apply the philosophy of flexible response, that we should be able to deter at every level. We have faced this at the intermediate force level, and we shall have to face it at the conventional level. Developments in emerging technology raise important opportunities and challenges in this respect. We may otherwise face an extremely dangerous moment with public opinion when people wake up to the degree to which our present dispositions imply an early resort to battlefield nuclear weapons in Europe. If they come to be aware of this, we shall face serious political pressures towards neutralism.
The second fundamental shortcoming in NATO orthodoxy and in the exposition of it in the White Paper is that it underestimates the global interests and global dependencies of NATO members and the global threat to their security. The geopolitical scene has altered out of all recognition since 1949, but NATO reflexes have not done so. In 1949, not only were there imperial structures to secure Europe's interests in the world, but there was the unchallenged maritime supremacy of the West. As the White Paper points out, since 1970 the Soviets have constructed 100 nuclear submarines and also a maritime surface fleet capable of world-wide operation. Through their proxies, they are able to bring to bear conventional strength at many points in the world where they were not able to do that 25 years ago. They conduct a continuous campaign of propaganda, disinformation and subversion.
Most critically, the Soviets are pursuing a resource war, as General Haig termed it. They have gone a long way towards encircling the Gulf. Although there have been recent setbacks, they have gone a long way towards building a systematic network of powers sympathetic to them in the southern third of Africa, the source of critical raw materials that are vital not only for our military strength but for our wider economic strength. Europe is far more dependent on sources of raw materials from that area than America is. No doubt his successors in the Kremlin recall Lenin's maxim, "Sever the raw materials flow from the colonies, and you cut the spinal cord of the empire".
The White Paper does not sufficiently acknowledge what would be the reality—that a war, even if it began in Europe, would not be confined to Europe, or to the north Atlantic. There would be strikes at the American rear from the Pacific, there would be a Soviet thrust down into the Gulf, there would be a major attempt at interdiction of our lifelines around the Cape, and at the very least major harassment in the Caribbean.
Freedom of navigation through the Panama canal and the stability of Mexico on America's border are criticial interests for American security. If they are criticial to American security, they are critical to us as well, and the more that American attention and resources have to be diverted to the Caribbean and central America, the less they are available for the direct protection of Europe.
NATO strategy is of forward deployments in Europe with a capacity for rapid and substantial reinforcement, but in the event of reinforcement in Europe being needed from across the Atlantic, some 75 per cent. of men and materiel would pass through the strait of Florida. Since 1979, the Soviet Union has made its major push in central America and the Caribbean, in powerful support for the Sandinista regime in Nicaragua, in the support that we saw for the Bishop regime in Grenada, and in the construction of important airfields in those two places. Those processes were matched between 1981 and 1983 by a tripling of the previous average annual level of arms support to Cuba.
These developments are an obvious and serious threat to the security of this country and of Europe. However, the response of too many political leaders in Europe at the moment of the American intervention in Grenada was equivocal, nerveless and censorious, if not downright condemnatory.
I regret that the White Paper discusses insufficiently these global matters. The jargon phrase "out of area" in today's circumstances betrays a somewhat blinkered and dated view. Admittedly the White Paper says that we cannot ignore threats to security from "out of area", but then there is a certain bathos in the description of out-of-area deployments in paragraph 450:
naval deployments last year included the continuation of a patrol of two frigates plus a float support in the Indian ocean, available to come to the assistance of merchant shipping should free passage in and out of the Gulf be threatened.… We have also continued to maintain a guardship in the Caribbean.
Again, in the discussion of 5 Airborne Brigade, it says:
Any additional capabilities required for 'out of area' deployments will be provided by the detachments from other formations assigned to NATO.
I have asked for substantial additional commitments in the conventional sphere and in our global out-of-area capacity. I do not think that what we have seen represents a sufficiently substantial response. Of course, substantial responses mean money on a large scale. As things are., we see that American defence expenditure forces up interest rates and produces instability which could, in a vicious circle, lead to the requirement for yet further defence commitments in different parts of the world.
Our own Government have taken a decision not to renew the commitment to increase our defence expenditure by 3 per cent. in real terms beyond 1985–86. As the White Paper says:
we can no longer afford to make military activity on a global scale a main priority of our defence effort".
I am conscious that hon. Members with vastly greater experience than I have on the subject wrestle with the problem of resources and of having to make hard choices in an apparently severely constrained budgetary situation. Yet there are oddities. The peoples of western Europe rightly have priorities very different from those of the peoples of eastern Europe. They are not prepared to spend 16 per cent. of GNP, as the Russians do on their so-called defence. Yet western Europeans are willing to pay what


is necessary for their defence. In Europe we have one and a half times the population of the Soviet Union and twice the GNP.
Why, therefore, do we struggle and fail to provide defence resources adequate to our needs? It is partly because we do not tell the story with sufficient clarity and skill. Certainly at the end of 1982 the NATO information budget was at the nugatory figure of some $2 million. I do not have an up-to-date figure, but it is pathetically inadequate as a budget to inform people of the nature of the Soviet build-up, which is reminiscent of the building of the Nazi war machine.
General Rogers says to anyone who will listen that an extra 1 per cent. expenditure on conventional strength would make the difference needed significantly to lift the nuclear threshold. Some countries are willing to spend what is necessary and some apparently are not. America is prepared to spend 6·9 per cent. of its GDP on defence. Creditably, Britain is prepared to spend 5·4 per cent. Other western European countries show a range of only 4·2 per cent. in the case of France, down to 2 per cent. in Spain. If there was the will, the additional 1 per cent. on conventional spending necessary in the analysis by General Rogers could be mustered.
There will be hard implications for public expenditure if we accept this. I hope that members of the Government will be very careful about dangling prospects of tax reductions before the British people. I make a distinction between the tax reductions that are necessary to revitalise the economy to build the economic strength to be able to afford the defence effort we need and any further tax reductions that may be seen as a reward for virtuous stoicism. It will be necessary to sustain expenditure and this will not be easy politically.
Perhaps the best feature of the White Paper is its recognition that we can go very much further in achieving value for money. The Secretary of State talked yesterday of a 30 per cent. benefit being achieved in costings as a result of competition, and he is pursuing that policy. We must also consider—this will be even more difficult politically—how much money we are wasting through the fragmentation of NATO procurement. So long as each individual member of NATO insists on maintaining at least a semi-independent defence industrial capacity, we shall continue to have prodigious waste from duplication in research and development and from short production runs. The politics of changing all that will be very difficult, but it is necessary to do so. Important economies can be achieved through standardisation of NATO equipment.
I very much welcome my right hon. Friend's emphasis on good management and improved value for money. I welcome the lead that he is taking in the Independent European Programme Group, but we must rise high above our industrial nationalisms. Together with the Americans, we must end the possessiveness and secrecy about new technology, which is wasteful and which tends to generate mistrust. We really ought to be able to match the resources of the Warsaw pact nations and even to leap-frog them.
I hope that the "star wars" development will turn out to be an instance of technological leap-frogging that will be of great benefit, but it would be premature to suppose that the implications of the new technology are that we can do without Trident.
There must be a much more thorough-going sharing and a much better considered division of labour within the NATO Alliance. We must also welcome the Japanese into a much more extensive global alliance.
I think that it was General de Gaulle who said, "Treaties are like roses—they fade, they fade." It was certainly he who, as early as 1958, suggested that NATO should consider broadening the area that was traditionally marked out as its bounds.
The difficulties that we are experiencing—the crisis of public expenditure in the NATO countries, the inadequacy of existing deployments, the intransigence of the Russians, the gap in our understanding between Europe and America, the instabilities in the Gulf and in Central America—should impel the NATO leaders to rethink their common security interests and how they can organise to meet them.

Mr. Robert Atkins: I have but three minutes in which to make a point which everyone knows I have made before. It has particular importance in view of my hon. Friend the Minister of State's procurement visit tomorrow to Paris and, indeed, the meeting of the Defence Ministers in July to discuss the European fighter aircraft. This is a continuing saga and was going on before my election to the House. I make no apology for repeating my concern about the matter today.
There have been recent stories in Aviation Week, which is very rarely wrong on the matter, about the desire of France to take a large share of the proposed programme. If we are to believe reports, France is talking about taking 46 per cent., as opposed to our 22 per cent., with West Germany taking 16 per cent. and Italy taking 10 per cent. of the programme. That would be unacceptable. We want a genuine partnership on the European fighter aircraft. We need that for a variety of reasons, which I do not have time to develop.
There are problems about budgetary issues, over the aircraft's precise military role and whether we should have an air superiority fighter or a ground attack fighter, which the French would like. There are problems on weight and performance factors and problems over which engine we should have. We must resolve these difficulties as quickly as possible. The early 1990s is the required in-service date. At present, Tornado aircraft are not being sold and, as the last Tornado is already off the drawing board, there is a great need for this new aeroplane to fill the gap.
I am almost fed up with arguing for the project. I am not being critical of my hon. Friend the Minister of State, because I know the depth of his commitment to the aeroplane, whatever its initials may be, but this must be a collaborative project and one which goes ahead in the very near future. My constituents deserve to have their skills recognised and enhanced.
Herr Fichtmueller, the head of Messerschmidt Boelkow Bloehm, said recently:
There is a certain momentum to this programme which must be used.
It must be used now. Herr Steinburger, the vice-president of Turbo Union, which makes the engines for Tornadoes, said:
If we cannot afford this aeroplane, when will we ever be able to afford a major development programme of our own?
I want this aeroplane to go ahead. I have argued for it in the years that I have been in the House. I hope that my


hon. Friend the Minister of State will continue to fight his corner for it, because it is vital for this country's national interest and the interests of my constituents that we get it.

Mr. Kevin McNamara: I congratulate the hon. Member for South Ribble (Mr. Atkins) on his speech. I suggest that if his hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Howarth) followed the hon. Gentleman's example, he might catch your eye more frequently, Mr. Speaker, and more of his hon. Friends might have got into the debate, which was the reason why the Minister and I agreed to make shorter speeches.
Yesterday we had what I felt was a rather dispirited speech from the Secretary of State. It reads reasonably, but I felt that his usual fire was gone. Even when he was attacking the Opposition, his heart was not in it. The reason is not hard to find. It is that the Government's defence policy has lost its way and is in tatters. The Secretary of State has abandoned the guidelines of Sir John Nott. One of the newspapers said that he has tiptoed away from them. If that is so, he has tiptoed away like a pantomime villain, with his finger on his lips. The audience — the whole country — knows that he is to blame for the lack of coherent defence policy.
One by one, the Secretary of State has reaccepted and extended the commitments with which Sir John Nott sought to dispense, but he has not had the resources—the money, ships, assets or men — properly to carry them out. Like the pantomime villain, he tiptoes away, hoping to find a refuge until the next reshuffle. He hopes that he will be away before his inconsistencies are discovered.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies), who opened the debate yesterday, suggested that the Secretary of State would go to Stormont. We would love to know who would replace him at a reshuffle. One thing is certain. Whoever comes will be faced with half-thought-out policies, a staff that is demoralised and in disarray and massive departmental overspending. The right hon. Gentleman will leave his legacy of the Department of the Environment at the Ministry of Defence. His successor will have to clear up the mess.
This is the policy that comes forth from the Estimates that we are discussing. It has more to do with the economics of the grocer's shop than with the defence needs of the nation. The Secretary of State has failed to give the House or the nation a sense of purpose. He has denied us an explanation of the philosophy the changing strategic and political assumptions upon which the policy is to be judged. Only if the right hon. Gentleman gave it could we properly assess his priorities and the correctness of his allocation of resources. His policy lacks the vision to enthuse the services or inspire and carry the confidence of the young of the nation, many of whom, against a background of no job opportunity, find the justifications for defence expenditure, particularly nuclear defence expenditure, unacceptable and sickening.
As the Select Committee on Defence said:
We strongly recommend that future White Papers include a review of long-term political and strategic prospects, both within the NATO area and beyond. It is not enough for governments to regard British defence capability as a general resource.
That is the attitude that the Secretary of State has taken. He treates our defence capability as a general resource with no thought and no ideas.
On every issue with which the excellent report of the Select Committee deals, the Committee tears to shreds the Minister's policies. It has yomped all over the Secretary of State's ideas, with devastating effect. That is no more apparent than in the MINIS mark 2 ideas. The confusion has come from the Department of the Environment to the Ministry of Defence.
The White Paper calls for MINIS to achieve cuts in overheads and improved accountability, and to encourage delegation and a more efficient use of resources. As aims, those are perfectly acceptable. However, that is not the reality. In the debate in the other place, Lord Cameron of Balhousie, former Chief of the Air Staff and Chief of the Defence Staff, said:
This general movement to a stronger central organisation for defence is nothing new.
He added later:
The next step, which is removing all the policy-making elements from the service departments and denigrating the Chiefs of Staff, is going too far. The plan is that individual service chiefs will lose their policy staff elements and be made responsible only for the morale and administration of their services—responsibility without power. The chiefs become no more than glorified inspector generals of their various services."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 13 June 1984; Vol. 452, c. 1158–59.]
A strange person for me to call as an ally, but Lord Cameron of Balhousie does so, is Casper Weinberger. When before the Senate Committee on Armed Services, he said:
There must be participation in policy making by those who will be responsible for executing it".
The ideas which have come forward so far from the Secretary of State suggest that the sharing of power and responsibility will be lost by the service chiefs who will be responsible for carrying out the Government's policy. It is no wonder that the Select Committee on Defence stated:
we must enter one further caveat.
It quotes the Secretary of State as saying:
The restructuring, if it proceeds upon the lines indicated, will have a profound effect on the resource allocation potentially, but I cannot say what the effect will be".
Earlier the Select Committee stated:
Nevertheless, organisation, whatever its advantages, will not be a panacea. It should not be seen as more than a means to an end. Moreover, the Secretary of State himself recognised that his proposals would be valueless unless carried through by his successors.
They would be valueless because their effectiveness is something that the Secretary of State cannot describe. This is part of the legacy that will fall to the right hon. Gentleman's successor, whoever he may be. He is destined never to be a lord Mayor and always to be a man with the bucket and spade.
It is on Trident that the vulnerability of the Estimates is perhaps most obvious. The Minister of State said that the Government are firmly committed to the nuclear deterrent. How firm is firmly committed? Is the right hon. Gentleman sure that we are firmly committed? Does he have no doubts whatsoever?
Yesterday we spoke at length about Trident. I do not want to go into great detail about the cost save to say that £9·4 billion is a great deal to spend on a weapon which last week became obsolete. When the United States rocket from a Pacific atoll destroyed Minuteman, which was launched in California—the destruction took place in outer space—Trident's defence relevance had come to an end. The 1972 anti-ballistic missile treaty is as good as dead. It has been killed by the United States of America. The Secretary of State knows it and the Select Committee knows it.
Following the Secretary of State's evidence to the Select Committee, the Committee reported as follows:
The Secretary of State did not quarrel with the observation that 'we are about to invest very substantial resources in a new generation ballistic missile system. In the event that both super-powers were to proceed down this road of defensive space-based systems, this not only could be de-stabilising as between the super powers but, if effective, it could negate what we have in mind to do"'
It could negate Trident. The hon. Member for Davyhulme (Mr. Churchill) deduced from that that, if ABM systems go ahead, Trident is lost. In effect, the Secretary of State is saying to President Reagan, "Please do not go ahead with 'star wars' so that I can have my Trident". It is far too late to take that approach.
As soon as the United States started its ABM research and the rocket which took off after the Minuteman was successful, the 1972 treaty was dead. The USSR is bound to follow and its reasearch will yield development, as surely as night follows day. Trident will then be obsolete. The House is worried how far down the expensive road of Trident building and development we shall go before the Government cancel it, as cancel it they must. That is probably another dirty job which the Secretary of State will leave to his successor.

Sir Humphrey Atkins: The hon. Gentleman appears to know more about the intentions of the United States Government than any other hon. Member. He argues that they will go ahead with these propositions. He has not taken into account what we know about Congress, the Senate and House of Representatives. Does he know more about the United States Government's intentions than we do, and if so will he please tell us?

Mr. McNamara: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. The United States has embarked on a research programme and has demonstrated its ability to take out a ballistic missile in outer space. It is therefore placing the entire Russian ballistic missile system in jeopardy. The USSR will embark on the same research, from which development will come. That is the history of the development of these terrible weapon systems. That is why I am entitled to say that the United States Government have killed the 1972 treaty. That is the logic of the case and the argument.
The procurement policies and attitude of the Secretary of State cause further confusion. My hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) spoke about the Secretary of State's activities regarding dockyards. Perhaps the Secretary of State will reply to that later. The Secretary of State rightly wishes to get the best value for money, and the best weapons and services for the Armed Forces. We do not quarrel with that principle. But we wonder whether the means by which he seeks to achieve his policy is effective or whether it suffers from so many contradictions that it is bound to fail immediately.
The Secretary of State laid down his four principles, with which I shall not delay the House. As the Select Committee said so laconically, "It is not surprising that many people in industry regard this particular policy as controversial." We must consider why that is so. First, the Secretary of State is looking for competition in an area of high technology, where expenditure soars rapidly and the degree of competition is limited and likely to decline rather than to grow. There is already the possibility of the merger

between British Aerospace and GEC. That merger will mean that 20 per cent. of MOD expenditure will go to one firm. That is £1·6 billion from £8 billion. That does not leave much room for competition.
It can be argued that such a merger, which will create a defence giant, will be good for the country in competition with Europeans and, especially, United States rivals. That argument may be acceptable because one may feel that such a firm will get a toe-hold in the American market. Unfortunately, the American market, with a few minor exceptions, is the most closed and protected defence market in the world. Not only is the possibility of getting substantial contracts there unlikely, but, as is feared in British defence industry, small firms, such as Ferranti and Plessey, and other middle-sized specialist firms will be susceptible to being taken over and pushed out because they will not have the means, ability or power to compete with a giant such as GEC-BAe. The Ministry of Defence must pay careful attention to that aspect because if small specialist firms are taken over by large firms competition will be reduced and the specialisation—the very raison d'être that kept them there—is likely to be lost to the nation for good.
In examining the proposals coming forward we must consider whether companies will seriously bid for work for which they have not done the research and development. Tooling up on other people's ideas is a very expensive activity. We must also ask whether the development work will be taken on by companies if they are not guaranteed the production after carrying out the research and development.
The Select Committee set out certain ground rules which should be followed by the Ministry of Defence in trying to sort out the strange tangle of contradictory ideas produced by the Secretary of State. The Committee's most important comment was that the economies of scale that might flow from research and development and long production runs were likely to be lost as a result of the Secretary of State's new policy. That would be disastrous for the defence industries and for the nation because it will increase rather than decrease the cost, which the Government and the country can ill afford. The policy will require extra staff to monitor and evaluate contracts and extra assessment will cause delays. Moreover, the lack of any reasonable assurance of future contracts will make firms reluctant to spend the necessary time on research and development or on development, a point noted by the hon. Member for Portsmouth, South (Mr. Hancock) in his maiden speech when he spoke of the important defence industries in his area.
We have been privileged to hear a number of distinguished maiden speeches today. We have seen the hon. Member for Surrey, South-West (Mrs. Bottomley) around the House and enjoyed her company for some time, but we enjoyed her speech even more. It was careful, well constructed and thoughtful, although if she stands by some of her conclusions she will be spending a long time on the Back Benches—and none the worse for that. The hon. Member for Portsmouth, South made a more robust speech having come straight from the hustings. Having come to the House in similar circumstances, I remind both hon. Members that all the best people first come to the House as a result of by-elections. We suffer the effects of close media attention to the way in which we clean our teeth or even, in my case, whether I changed a nappy properly. Certainly the media give us no rest. Fortunately, however,


neither hon. Member will have woken up as I did to read in what was my normal bible, the then Manchester Guardian, that there were nine reasons why Labour would lose North Hull and that I accounted for eight of them. Both hon. Members contributed well to the debate and made important speeches which deserve careful consideration by the Minister.
Ministers must also reply to the important points made about the merchant fleet. At Sea Link 84, the hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Speed) and I asked the assembled dignitaries — admirals, NATO heads, civil servants, Ministers and academics—whether they could give a positive undertaking that there was sufficient reinforcement for the merchant fleet to fulfil our NATO obligations now. The question was greeted with a lowering of heads, a shuffling of feet and a general blushing because they could not give that commitment. That being so, it is incumbent on the Minister today not to shuffle the matter off with some bland statement about being sure that we can do it but to give positive examples of the way in which the Government are facing the threat to the reinforcement of Europe caused by the diminution of the Western-controlled merchant fleet.
I wished to make many other points, but I will finish on this one. The Secretary of State is trying to have a £25 billion defence policy with £18 billion to spend. He or his predecessor will be forced to do what the Select Committee has hinted at. He will have to re-examine the whole basis of his policy. He will be forced to come to some of the awkward and disagreeable conclusions that John Nott had to come to. If he does not get more money, he will be unable to carry out his commitments.
The right hon. Gentleman does not have the resources. As a result, his priorities will go all to pot as, like a perpetual bankrupt, he tries to balance one account or cheque against another. He will be unable to do so.
That is why we believe that the policy outlined in our amendment is sensible. Trident is obsolete even before the keel is laid, and cruise has done more damage to NATO than the Warsaw pact has done during the whole existence of that foreign alliance. People in Europe and the United States are questioning the whole purpose of the Alliance. One of the reasons is lack of imagination and consideration and the Government's failure to seize the opportunities of the new technologies to get away from a policy that is based purely and simply on nuclear deterrence. That is a policy for wiping out future generations, not preserving them. That is why we are voting for our amendment and against the Estimates tonight.

The Minister of State for Defence Procurement (Mr. Geoffrey Pattie): I begin by welcoming the two maiden speeches that we heard today. In an able and lucid speech, my hon. Friend the Member for Surrey, South-West (Mrs. Bottomely) gave us a practical guide to various forms of standardisation of which the Ministry would do well to take careful note. She spoke of the three principles of clarity, conviction and continuity. Her own speech was characterised by clarity and conviction. As to continuity, we hope that we shall hear much more from her in these debates in future.
The other maiden speech came from the fresh-from-the-hustings hon. Member for Portsmouth, South (Mr. Hancock). It has already been said that he brought the vigour of the hustings to his remarks. Many who heard him

would say that it was close to the line of being controversial for a maiden speech, but none the less it was welcomed for the vigour and clarity with which it was declaimed. We were glad to hear from the hon. Gentleman and to know that he will contribute to our debates, as we would expect anyone from Portsmouth to do.
The hon. Gentleman asked for an assurance on future redundancies. I am glad to be able to tell him that there are no plans to issue any more redundancy notices to employees at the Portsmouth naval base. He will be aware of the companies that operate in the Portsmouth travel-to-work area. Many of them, particularly Marconi and Plessey, have been successful over the years, and I see no reason at all why that should change in the immediate future.
Like the House, I was glad that we had a contribution from my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-West (Dr. Hampson). He welcomed the new Challenger tank order as well as the reorganisation that has been set in train by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State.
The hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) made various references to the Levene report and said that apparently I had been considering it for some days. I have not. He diagnosed the problems, but I must tell him that we are still looking at Mr. Levene's report, and no decisions have yet been taken.
The hon. Gentleman and the House should consider why, with increasing frequency, there are reports on the royal dockyards. The hon. Gentleman referred to the report bearing the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Speed). I think he will confirm that. despite all the will to win, and despite the contributions made in the Falklands, a great deal can still be achieved by increased efficiency and increased managerial awareness of modern techniques, and I think that some help is needed for the dockyards in that area. We will be informing the House of our ideas and plans in due course.
My hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North (Mr. Thompson) welcomed the Territorial Army's enlargement to 86,000 by the end of the decade, and I am glad to have his endorsement of our proposals.
The hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) gave me, if I may say so, a customary list of detailed questions, which will be responded to, as all his questions are. I know that my right hon. Friend the Minister of State for the Armed Forces has been listening carefully to what he said about Mount Pleasant airport. That also will be the subject of replies that will reach him in due course.
My hon. Friend the Member for Boothferry (Sir P. Bryan), in a powerful speech, added his voice to those that were raised yesterday on behalf of the Merchant Navy, drawing attention to the vital need in strategic and defence terms for a strong Merchant Marine. As the report of the Select Committee will confirm, when my right hon. Friend the Minister of State for the Armed Forces and I appeared before the Committee some weeks ago, my right hon. Friend said that a major study was in progress on the Merchant Navy, and this will be made available in due course. We do not in any way feel complacent about the situation in relation to the Merchant Navy. I am only sorry if the House has that impression, because it is not the case. My right hon. Friend the Minister of State for the Armed Forces has the matter well in hand.

Mr. Dick Douglas: Does the hon. Gentleman accept the view of the Select Committee and of the General Council of British Shipping about the trend in the diminution of the British flag fleet?

Mr. Pattie: The trends that have been spoken about are pretty clear in the sense that there has been a diminution over the years. The House will want to know the Government's view on the matter. As I was telling the House, my right hon. Friend is addressing this issue at present.
My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Colchester, North (Sir A. Buck) paid a tribute to Dr. Luns, the retiring Secretary-General of NATO, with which I am delighted to associate the Government, and gave his good wishes to Lord Carrington, who takes over that post in the near future. I know that the House will echo my hon. and learned Friend's good wishes. My hon. and learned Friend also paid a handsome and well-deserved tribute to the role played by the British forces in support of the Royal Ulster Constabulary in Northern Ireland.
All the points raised by hon. Member for Fermagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maginnis) will be closely studied. I should like him to feel that we have noted carefully what he said. I do not think that he would expect me to respond in a few moments, because, if I may say so with no discourtesy to the House, the points are too important to be replied to in a winding-up speech. We have to make certain that we study them carefully, and that will be done.
The hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber (Mr. Johnston), who spoke for the Liberal party, claimed that we were in some way impeding European unity by our possession of Trident. I notice that he never mentioned France and its possession of strategic nuclear weapons, but perhaps they come under some different categorisation, and we were not told what that was.
The hon. Member for Walsall, South (Mr. George), in his usual cogent manner when speaking on defence matters—he is one of the closest students of defence in the House—made one of the most important single points that we have heard during the two days' debate. He referred to the problem—and it is freely acknowledged —of IFF—identification friend or foe. It is the ability of aeroplanes to assess whether an incoming aeroplane is a friend or a foe. There are difficulties between the NATO Allies as to which system should be adopted. It is an extremely technical, but important, matter and the hon. Gentleman was right to raise it.
My hon. Friend the Member for Crawley (Mr. Soames), in an interesting and thought-provoking speech, spoke about the importance of new technologies. He made the important point that the MOD is the customer and that we have the right—one might even say the duty—to insist that we obtain terms and contracts which we feel are right and appropriate.
My hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Howarth) told the House that he had reservations about various parts of the White Paper. I thought that he was a little churlish to criticise us for using phrases such as "out of area", because the orientation of the White Paper is NATO and, therefore, by definition to the NATO area. Such jargon phrases are used without wishing to imply that we do not think that defence outside the NATO area is of no significance.
My hon. Friend the Member for South Ribble (Mr. Atkins), in wishing me well tomorrow, may want to know

that it is my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State who is going—I go merely to carry his briefcase. I know that my right hon. Friend has heard my hon. Friend's remarks and we feel that we have had our cards marked for the negotiations with the French.
Many of the comments made during the two days' debate have centred on the perceived problems of expenditure levels at the end of the decade, especially in relation to Trident. Several hon. Members have offered alternatives—that is still one of the panaceas being grasped. I do not wish to detain the House by talking about average figures over the whole programme, but I must say—it has been mentioned on several occasions, but is worth repeating—that at its peak Trident is expected to reach 11 per cent. of the equipment programme. That, by definition, means £11 in £100, which leaves £89 for the remainder of the procurement programme.
There is a tendency for people to take White Papers, to read a list of new programmes, to aggregate them and to imagine that they will all be paid for in the same year. Every one of the programmes has a particular spend profile, and if a programme has been approved by my right hon. Friend for the core programme that means that the spend profile fits in well with all the other programmes.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ashford lucidly enunciated a list—the EH101, the type 22, the type 23 and the replacement for Fearless—and asked how we could possibly contain those. The answer is that we have planned to contain them.

Mr. Keith Speed: My hon. Friend mentioned 11 per cent. and, indeed, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State mentioned that figure to the Select Committee. Will my hon. Friend accept something that was hinted at by the Secretary of State, which is that it will be 30 per cent. plus of the Royal Navy equipment budget? That is why I mentioned the Navy procurement projects.

Mr. Pattie: If my hon. Friend consults the current naval authorities, with whom I hope he is in contact, he will find that the programmes to which I referred are approved, are scheduled and will occur.
The hon. Member for Walsall, South made an important point in connection with competition—more important than he realised—when he said that he had noticed that the Secretary of State had decided to order 62 more tanks for a fifth Challenger tank regiment. The hon. Gentleman asked what had happened to the competition policy. Was there competition in this case? No, there was not. Was it a case of the right hand and the left hand?
The only way in which we could have ensured competition in the case of the fifth Challenger regiment would have been to set up another company, which could then have made a bid. That would have taken one and a half or two years, and in that time the company which manufactures the tank would have found itself in serious difficulties. We would therefore have found ourselves back in the same position, with only one company to deal with.
My right hon. Friend's drive for competition is not a drive for competition at all costs and in all cases. There is to be an emphasis on competition. It is to be the imperative and the emphasis. We want competition, except in cases where it would be nonsensical and would involve a cost penalty. That is the only sensible attitude. If we force people to make competitive quotes when there


is no second source, or the source would take a long time to set up or the cost would be greater, that is not cost-effective, and we would expect in due course to receive the strictures of the Chairman of the Select Committee.
It is in the area of competition that we expect to be able to make any headroom that is necessary in the procurement programme at the end of the decade and the start of the next decade, which is the time about which most people are anxious. This is not just a case of competitive quotations. By competition, we mean a different relationship between the Ministry and industry whereby we delete the gold-plating, we do not try to overstate the requirements, we are more cautious about what we are trying to achieve, we involve industry in a partnership and we advance on a more cautious basis.
In that way we shall eliminate some of the more serious penalties and cost overruns, which have run into several hundreds of millions of pounds over the years as we have tried to find new technologies which would be relevant in 15 or 18 years' time. The more cautious we can be—the more incremental and evolutionary our approach—the better our chance will be of eliminating through closer control of procurement the cock-ups—to use the vulgar phrase—that have occurred in the past. In that way, we believe that we can make headroom.
There is at present a review of the procurement executive in train, for which I am responsible. The authors of the review will report to my right hon. Friend in the very near future, in the hope that when he presents a further White Paper on the subject of the MOD reorganisation to the House before the summer recess—a treat in store—he will include in it some outline proposals for new ideas on the procurement executive.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ashford drew attention to other areas in which we could save money. He followed the line of the leader writer of The Times, who, as my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Mr. Critchley) reminded us, dusts down his article three or four times a year. My hon. Friend identified the support facilities for our troops in Germany — wives, families, nappies, schools and so on. How about bringing them all back? He did not remind the House that those facilities would be required in the United Kingdom in any case.
I believe that one of the best ways in which we can look after the front line is by looking after the people who serve in the front line. If the people at the front line are unhappy about their wives and families, they will not be content doing the job asked of them. My hon. Friend also asked about making our reinforcements more mobile and going for more troop reinforcements. That is never a good idea. NATO commanders always prefer to have in-place forces rather than forces that have to be reinforced. My hon. Friend also asked about the brittleness of our relations with the Federal Republic of Germany. That matter was decided in 1980.
I ask the House to reject the Opposition amendment and to support the White Paper, which we believe is accurate and realistic.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 164, Noes 351.

Division No. 374]
[10 pm


AYES


Abse, Leo
Ashley, Rt Hon Jack


Adams, Allen (Paisley N)
Ashton, Joe


Anderson, Donald
Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Banks, Tony (Newham NW)





Barnett, Guy
Lambie, David


Beckett, Mrs Margaret
Leighton, Ronald


Bell, Stuart
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)


Benn, Tony
Lewis, Terence (Worsley)


Bennett, A. (Dent'n &amp; Red'sh)
Litherland, Robert


Blair, Anthony
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Boothroyd, Miss Betty
Lofthouse, Geoffrey


Boyes, Roland
Loyden, Edward


Bray, Dr Jeremy
McCartney, Hugh


Brown, Gordon (D'f'mline E)
McDonald, Dr Oonagh


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
McKay, Allen (Penistone)


Brown, N. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne E)
McKelvey, William


Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith)
Mackenzie, Rt Hon Gregor


Buchan, Norman
McNamara, Kevin


Caborn, Richard
McTaggart, Robert


Campbell, Ian
McWilliam, John


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Madden, Max


Canavan, Dennis
Marek, Dr John


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Clarke, Thomas
Martin, Michael


Clay, Robert
Mason, Rt Hon Roy


Clwyd, Ms Ann
Maxton, John


Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S.)
Meacher, Michael


Cohen, Harry
Michie, William


Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.
Mikardo, Ian


Conlan, Bernard
Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)


Cook, Robin F. (Livingston)
Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)


Corbyn, Jeremy
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)


Craigen, J. M.
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon


Crowther, Stan
O'Brien, William


Cunliffe, Lawrence
O'Neill, Martin


Cunningham, Dr John
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Dalyell, Tam
Park, George


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (L'lli)
Parry, Robert


Davies, Ronald (Caerphilly)
Patchett, Terry


Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'ge H'I)
Pavitt, Laurie


Deakins, Eric
Pendry, Tom


Dewar, Donald
Pike, Peter


Dixon, Donald
Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)


Dobson, Frank
Prescott, John


Dormand, Jack
Radice, Giles


Douglas, Dick
Redmond, M.


Dubs, Alfred
Rees, Rt Hon M. (Leeds S)


Duffy, A. E. P.
Richardson, Ms Jo


Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.
Roberts, Allan (Bootle)


Eadie, Alex
Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)


Eastham, Ken
Robertson, George


Ellis, Raymond
Rogers, Allan


Evans, John (St. Helens N)
Rooker, J. W.


Ewing, Harry
Ross, Ernest (Dundee W)


Fatchett, Derek
Rowlands, Ted


Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
Ryman, John


Fisher, Mark
Sedgemore, Brian


Flannery, Martin
Sheerman, Barry


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Sheldon, Rt Hon R.


Forrester, John
Short, Mrs (W'hampt'n NE)


Foulkes, George
Silkin, Rt Hon J.


Fraser, J. (Norwood)
Skinner, Dennis


George, Bruce
Smith, C.(Isl'ton S &amp; F'bury)


Golding, John
Spearing, Nigel


Gould, Bryan
Stott, Roger


Gourlay, Harry
Strang, Gavin


Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)
Straw, Jack


Harman, Ms Harriet
Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)


Harrison, Rt Hon Walter
Thomas, Dr R. (Carmarthen)


Hart, Rt Hon Dame Judith
Thompson, J. (Wansbeck)


Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Tinn, James


Healey, Rt Hon Denis
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)
Wareing, Robert


Home Robertson, John
Welsh, Michael


Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)
White, James


Hoyle, Douglas
Wigley, Dafydd


Hughes, Dr. Mark (Durham)
Williams, Rt Hon A.


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Wilson, Gordon


Hughes, Roy (Newport East)
Winnick, David


Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Janner, Hon Greville



John, Brynmor
Tellers for the Ayes:


Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)
Mr. James Hamilton and


Kilroy-Silk, Robert
Mr. Frank Haynes.






NOES


Adley, Robert
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.


Aitken, Jonathan
Dover, Den


Alexander, Richard
du Cann, Rt Hon Edward


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Dunn, Robert


Alton, David
Durant, Tony


Amery, Rt Hon Julian
Dykes, Hugh


Amess, David
Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)


Ancram, Michael
Emery, Sir Peter


Arnold, Tom
Fairbairn, Nicholas


Ashby, David
Fallon, Michael


Ashdown, Paddy
Farr, John


Aspinwall, Jack
Favell, Anthony


Atkins, Rt Hon Sir H.
Fenner, Mrs Peggy


Atkins, Robert (South Ribble)
Fletcher, Alexander


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Vall'y)
Fookes, Miss Janet


Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)
Forman, Nigel


Baldry, Anthony
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Forsythe, Clifford (S Antrim)


Batiste, Spencer
Forth, Eric


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Fowler, Rt Hon Norman


Beggs, Roy
Fox, Marcus


Beith, A. J.
Franks, Cecil


Bellingham, Henry
Fraser, Peter (Angus East)


Bendall, Vivian
Freeman, Roger


Benyon, William
Gale, Roger


Berry, Sir Anthony
Galley, Roy


Best, Keith
Gardiner, George (Reigate)


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Gardner, Sir Edward (Fylde)


Biggs-Davison, Sir John
Garel-Jones, Tristan


Body, Richard
Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Glyn, Dr Alan


Bottomley, Peter
Goodlad, Alastair


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Gorst, John


Bowden, A. (Brighton K'to'n)
Gower, Sir Raymond


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Greenway, Harry


Boyson, Dr Rhodes
Gregory, Conal


Braine, Sir Bernard
Griffiths, E. (B'y St Edm'ds)


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)


Bright, Graham
Grist, Ian


Brinton, Tim
Ground, Patrick


Brittan, Rt Hon Leon
Grylls, Michael


Brooke, Hon Peter
Gummer, John Selwyn


Brown, M. (Brigg &amp; Cl'thpes)
Hancock, Michael


Browne, John
Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)


Bruce, Malcolm
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Bruinvels, Peter
Hampson, Dr Keith


Bryan, Sir Paul
Hanley, Jeremy


Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon A.
Hannam, John


Buck, Sir Antony
Hargreaves, Kenneth


Budgen, Nick
Harvey, Robert


Bulmer, Esmond
Haselhurst, Alan


Burt, Alistair
Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael


Butcher, John
Hawkins, C. (High Peak)


Carlile, Alexander (Montg'y)
Hawksley, Warren


Carlisle, John (N Luton)
Hayes, J.


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Hayhoe, Barney


Carttiss, Michael
Hayward, Robert


Cartwright, John
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Cash, William
Heddle, John


Chalker, Mrs Lynda
Henderson, Barry


Chapman, Sydney
Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael


Chope, Christopher
Hicks, Robert


Clark, Hon A. (Plym'th S'n)
Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Hind, Kenneth


Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)
Hirst, Michael


Clegg, Sir Walter
Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)


Cockeram, Eric
Holland, Sir Philip (Gedling)


Colvin, Michael
Holt, Richard


Conway, Derek
Hordern, Peter


Coombs, Simon
Howard, Michael


Cope, John
Howarth, Alan (Stratf'd-on-A)


Cormack, Patrick
Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)


Couchman, James
Howell, Rt Hon D. (G'Idford)


Cranborne, Viscount
Howells, Geraint


Critchley, Julian
Hubbard-Miles, Peter


Crouch, David
Hunt, David (Wirral)


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)


Dicks, Terry
Hunter, Andrew


Dorrell, Stephen
Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas





Irving, Charles
Oppenheim, Rt Hon Mrs S.


Jackson, Robert
Ottaway, Richard


Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick
Owen, Rt Hon Dr David


Jenkins, Rt Hon Roy (Hillh'd)
Page, John (Harrow W)


Johnston, Russell
Page, Richard (Herts SW)


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil


Jones, Robert (W Herts)
Parris, Matthew


Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith
Patten, Christopher (Bath)


Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine
Patten, John (Oxford)


Kershaw, Sir Anthony
Pattie, Geoffrey


Key, Robert
Pawsey, James


Kirkwood, Archy
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Knight, Gregory (Derby N)
Penhaligon, David


Knowles, Michael
Percival, Rt Hon Sir Ian


Knox, David
Porter, Barry


Lamont, Norman
Powley, John


Lang, Ian
Prentice, Rt Hon Reg


Latham, Michael
Price, Sir David


Lawler, Geoffrey
Proctor, K. Harvey


Lawrence, Ivan
Pym, Rt Hon Francis


Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel
Raffan, Keith


Lee, John (Pendle)
Raison, Rt Hon Timothy


Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)
Rathbone, Tim


Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Rees, Rt Hon Peter (Dover)


Lester, Jim
Renton, Tim


Lewis, Sir Kenneth (Stamf'd)
Rhodes James, Robert


Lightbown, David
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Lilley, Peter
Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas


Lloyd, Peter, (Fareham)
Ridsdale, Sir Julian


Lord, Michael
Rifkind, Malcolm


Luce, Richard
Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey


Lyell, Nicholas
Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)


McCurley, Mrs Anna
Robinson, Mark (N'port W)


Macfarlane, Neil
Ross, Wm. (Londonderry)


MacGregor, John
Rossi, Sir Hugh


MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire)
Rowe, Andrew


MacKay, John (Argyll &amp; Bute)
Rumbold, Mrs Angela


Maclean, David John
Ryder, Richard


Maclennan, Robert
Sackville, Hon Thomas


McNair-Wilson, P. (New F'st)
Sainsbury, Hon Timothy


Madel, David
Sayeed, Jonathan


Maginnis, Ken
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


Major, John
Shelton, William (Streatham)


Malins, Humfrey
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Malone, Gerald
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)


Maples, John
Shersby, Michael


Marland, Paul
Silvester, Fred


Marlow, Antony
Sims, Roger


Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Skeet, T. H. H.


Mates, Michael
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Maude, Hon Francis
Smyth, Rev W. M. (Belfast S)


Mawhinney, Dr Brian
Soames, Hon Nicholas


Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Speed, Keith


Mayhew, Sir Patrick
Spencer, Derek


Meadowcroft, Michael
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Mellor, David
Squire, Robin


Merchant, Piers
Stanbrook, Ivor


Meyer, Sir Anthony
Stanley, John


Miller, Hal (B'grove)
Steel, Rt Hon David


Mills, Iain (Meriden)
Steen, Anthony


Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon)
Stern, Michael


Miscampbell, Norman
Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)


Mitchell, David (NW Hants)
Stevens, Martin (Fulham)


Moate, Roger
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


Molyneaux, Rt Hon James
Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)


Monro, Sir Hector
Stewart, Ian (N Hertf'dshire)


Montgomery, Fergus
Stradling Thomas, J.


Moore, John
Sumberg, David


Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)
Tapsell, Peter


Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)
Taylor, John (Solihull)


Moynihan, Hon C.
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Neale, Gerrard
Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman


Needham, Richard
Temple-Morris, Peter


Nelson, Anthony
Terlezki, Stefan


Neubert, Michael
Thomas, Rt Hon Peter


Nicholls, Patrick
Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)


Normanton, Tom
Thorne, Neil (Ilford S)


Norris, Steven
Thornton, Malcolm


Onslow, Cranley
Thurnham, Peter


Oppenheim, Philip
Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)






Tracey, Richard
Watts, John


Trotter, Neville
Wells, Bowen (Hertford)


Twinn, Dr Ian
Wells, John (Maidstone)


van Straubenzee, Sir W.
Whitfield, John


Vaughan, Sir Gerard
Whitney, Raymond


Viggers, Peter
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Waddington, David
Winterton, Nicholas


Wakeham, Rt Hon John
Wolfson, Mark


Waldegrave, Hon William
Wood, Timothy


Walden, George
Woodcock, Michael


Walker, Cecil (Belfast N)
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Walker, Bill (T'side N)
Yeo, Tim


Walker, Rt Hon P. (W'cester)
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Wallace, James
Younger, Rt Hon George


Waller, Gary



Walters, Dennis
Tellers for the Noes:


Wardle, C. (Bexhill)
Mr. Robert Boscawen and Mr. Carol Mather 


Warren, Kenneth



Watson, John

Question accordingly negatived.

Questopn put:—

The House divided: Ayes 332, Noes 176.

Division No. 375]
[10.15 pm


AYES


Adley, Robert
Chalker, Mrs Lynda


Aitken, Jonathan
Chapman, Sydney


Alexander, Richard
Chope, Christopher


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Clark, Hon A. (Plym'th S'n)


Amery, Rt Hon Julian
Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)


Amess, David
Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)


Ancram, Michael
Clegg, Sir Walter


Arnold, Tom
Cockeram, Eric


Ashby, David
Colvin, Michael


Aspinwall, Jack
Conway, Derek


Atkins, Rt Hon Sir H.
Coombs, Simon


Atkins, Robert (South Ribble)
Cope, John


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Vall'y)
Cormack, Patrick


Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)
Couchman, James


Baldry, Anthony
Cranborne, Viscount


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Crouch, David


Batiste, Spencer
Currie, Mrs Edwina


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Dicks, Terry


Beggs, Roy
Dorrell, Stephen


Bellingham, Henry
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.


Bendall, Vivian
Dover, Den


Benyon, William
du Cann, Rt Hon Edward


Berry, Sir Anthony
Dunn, Robert


Best, Keith
Durant, Tony


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Dykes, Hugh


Biggs-Davison, Sir John
Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)


Body, Richard
Emery, Sir Peter


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Fairbairn, Nicholas


Bottomley, Peter
Fallon, Michael


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Farr, John


Bowden, A. (Brighton K'to'n)
Favell, Anthony


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Fenner, Mrs Peggy


Boyson, Dr Rhodes
Fletcher, Alexander


Braine, Sir Bernard
Fookes, Miss Janet


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Forman, Nigel


Bright, Graham
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)


Brinton, Tim
Forsythe, Clifford (S Antrim)


Brittan, Rt Hon Leon
Forth, Eric


Brooke, Hon Peter
Fowler, Rt Hon Norman


Brown, M. (Brigg &amp; Cl'thpes)
Fox, Marcus


Browne, John
Franks, Cecil


Bruinvels, Peter
Fraser, Peter (Angus East)


Bryan, Sir Paul
Freeman, Roger


Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon A.
Gale, Roger


Buck, Sir Antony
Galley, Roy


Budgen, Nick
Gardiner, George (Reigate)


Bulmer, Esmond
Gardner, Sir Edward (Fylde)


Burt, Alistair
Garel-Jones, Tristan


Butcher, John
Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian


Carlisle, John (N Luton)
Glyn, Dr Alan


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Goodlad, Alastair


Carttiss, Michael
Gorst, John


Cash, William
Gower, Sir Raymond





Greenway, Harry
Major, John


Gregory, Conal
Malins, Humfrey


Griffiths, E. (B'y St Edm'ds)
Malone, Gerald


Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)
Maples, John


Grist, Ian
Marland, Paul


Ground, Patrick
Marlow, Antony


Grylls, Michael
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)


Gummer, John Selwyn
Mates, Michael


Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)
Maude, Hon Francis


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Mawhinney, Dr Brian


Hampson, Dr Keith
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Hanley, Jeremy
Mayhew, Sir Patrick


Hannam, John
Mellor, David


Hargreaves, Kenneth
Merchant, Piers


Harvey, Robert
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Haselhurst, Alan
Miller, Hal (B'grove)


Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael
Mills, Iain (Meriden)


Hawkins, C. (High Peak)
Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon)


Hawksley, Warren
Miscampbell, Norman


Hayes, J.
Mitchell, David (NW Hants)


Hayhoe, Barney
Moate, Roger


Hayward, Robert
Molyneaux, Rt Hon James


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Monro, Sir Hector


Heddle, John
Montgomery, Fergus


Henderson, Barry
Moore, John


Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael
Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)


Hicks, Robert
Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)


Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.
Moynihan, Hon C.


Hind, Kenneth
Neale, Gerrard


Hirst, Michael
Needham, Richard


Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)
Nelson, Anthony


Holland, Sir Philip (Gedling)
Neubert, Michael


Holt, Richard
Nicholls, Patrick


Hordern, Peter
Normanton, Tom


Howard, Michael
Norris, Steven


Howarth, Alan (Stratf'd-on-A)
Onslow, Cranley


Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)
Oppenheim, Philip


Howell, Rt Hon D. (G'ldford)
Oppenheim, Rt Hon Mrs S.


Hubbard-Miles, Peter
Ottaway, Richard


Hunt, David (Wirral)
Page, John (Harrow W)


Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)
Page, Richard (Herts SW)


Hunter, Andrew
Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil


Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas
Parris, Matthew


Irving, Charles
Patten, Christopher (Bath)


Jackson, Robert
Patten, John (Oxford)


Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick
Pattie, Geoffrey


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Pawsey, James


Jones, Robert (W Herts)
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith
Percival, Rt Hon Sir Ian


Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine
Porter, Barry


Kershaw, Sir Anthony
Powell, Rt Hon J. E. (S Down)


Key, Robert
Powley, John


Knight, Gregory (Derby N)
Prentice, Rt Hon Reg


Knowles, Michael
Price, Sir David


Knox, David
Proctor, K. Harvey


Lamont, Norman
Pym, Rt Hon Francis


Lang, Ian
Raffan, Keith


Latham, Michael
Raison, Rt Hon Timothy


Lawler, Geoffrey
Rathbone, Tim


Lawrence, Ivan
Rees, Rt Hon Peter (Dover)


Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel
Renton, Tim


Lee, John (Pendle)
Rhodes James, Robert


Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas


Lester, Jim
Ridsdale, Sir Julian


Lewis, Sir Kenneth (Stamf'd)
Rifkind, Malcolm


Lightbown, David
Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey


Lilley, Peter
Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)


Lloyd, Peter, (Fareham)
Robinson, Mark (N'port W)


Lord, Michael
Ross, Wm. (Londonderry)


Luce, Richard
Rossi, Sir Hugh


Lyell, Nicholas
Rowe, Andrew


McCurley, Mrs Anna
Rumbold, Mrs Angela


MacGregor, John
Ryder, Richard


MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire)
Sackville, Hon Thomas


MacKay, John (Argyll &amp; Bute)
Sainsbury, Hon Timothy


Maclean, David John
Sayeed, Jonathan


McNair-Wilson, P. (New F'st)
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


Madel, David
Shelton, William (Streatham)


Maginnis, Ken
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)






Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)
Tracey, Richard


Shersby, Michael
Trotter, Neville


Silvester, Fred
Twinn, Dr Ian


Sims, Roger
van Straubenzee, Sir W.


Skeet, T. H. H.
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)
Viggers, Peter


Smyth, Rev W. M. (Belfast S)
Waddington, David


Soames, Hon Nicholas
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Speed, Keith
Waldegrave, Hon William


Spencer, Derek
Walden, George


Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)
Walker, Cecil (Belfast N)


Squire, Robin
Walker, Bill (T'side N)


Stanbrook, Ivor
Walker, Rt Hon P. (W'cester)


Stanley, John
Waller, Gary


Steen, Anthony
Walters, Dennis


Stern, Michael
Wardle, C. (Bexhill)


Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)
Warren, Kenneth


Stevens, Martin (Fulham)
Watson, John


Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)
Watts, John


Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)
Wells, Bowen (Hertford)


Stewart, Ian (N Hertf'dshire)
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Stradling Thomas, J.
Whitfield, John


Sumberg, David
Whitney, Raymond


Tapsell, Peter
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Taylor, John (Solihull)
Winterton, Nicholas


Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)
Wolfson, Mark


Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman
Wood, Timothy


Temple-Morris, Peter
Woodcock, Michael


Terlezki, Stefan
Yeo, Tim


Thomas, Rt Hon Peter
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)
Younger, Rt Hon George


Thorne, Neil (Ilford S)



Thornton, Malcolm
Tellers for the Ayes:


Thurnham, Peter
Mr. Carol Mather and Mr. Robert Boscawen.


Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)





NOES


Adams, Allen (Paisley N)
Clwyd, Ms Ann


Alton, David
Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S.)


Anderson, Donald
Cohen, Harry


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.


Ashdown, Paddy
Conlan, Bernard


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Cook, Robin F. (Livingston)


Ashton, Joe
Corbyn, Jeremy


Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)
Craigen, J. M.


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Crowther, Stan


Barnett, Guy
Cunliffe, Lawrence


Beckett, Mrs Margaret
Cunningham, Dr John


Beith, A. J.
Dalyell, Tam


Bell, Stuart
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (L'lli)


Benn, Tony
Davies, Ronald (Caerphilly)


Bennett, A. (Dent'n &amp; Red'sh)
Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'ge H'l)


Blair, Anthony
Deakins, Eric


Boothroyd, Miss Betty
Dewar, Donald


Boyes, Roland
Dixon, Donald


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Dobson, Frank


Brown, Gordon (D'f'mline E)
Dormand, Jack


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Douglas, Dick


Brown, N. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne E)
Dubs, Alfred


Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith)
Duffy, A. E. P.


Bruce, Malcolm
Eadie, Alex


Buchan, Norman
Eastham, Ken


Caborn, Richard
Ellis, Raymond


Campbell, Ian
Evans, John (St. Helens N)


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Ewing, Harry


Canavan, Dennis
Fatchett, Derek


Carlile, Alexander (Montg'y)
Field, Frank (Birkenhead)


Cartwright, John
Fisher, Mark


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Flannery, Martin


Clarke, Thomas
Foot, Rt Hon Michael


Clay, Robert
Forrester, John





Foulkes, George
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon


Fraser, J. (Norwood)
O'Brien, William


George, Bruce
O'Neill, Martin


Golding, John
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Gould, Bryan
Owen, Rt Hon Dr David


Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)
Park, George


Hancock, Michael
Parry, Robert


Harman, Ms Harriet
Patchett, Terry


Harrison, Rt Hon Walter
Pavitt, Laurie


Hart, Rt Hon Dame Judith
Pendry, Tom


Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Penhaligon, David


Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)
Pike, Peter


Home Robertson, John
Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)


Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)
Prescott, John


Howells, Geraint
Radice, Giles


Hoyle, Douglas
Redmond, M.


Hughes, Dr. Mark (Durham)
Rees, Rt Hon M. (Leeds S)


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Richardson, Ms Jo


Hughes, Roy (Newport East)
Roberts, Allan (Bootle)


Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)
Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)


Janner, Hon Greville
Robertson, George


Jenkins, Rt Hon Roy (Hillh'd)
Rogers, Allan


Johnston, Russell
Rooker, J. W.


Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)
Ross, Ernest (Dundee W)


Kilroy-Silk, Robert
Rowlands, Ted


Kirkwood, Archy
Ryman, John


Lambie, David
Sedgemore, Brian


Leighton, Ronald
Sheerman, Barry


Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Sheldon, Rt Hon R.


Lewis, Terence (Worsley)
Short, Mrs R(W'hampt'n NE)


Litherland, Robert
Silkin, Rt Hon J.


Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Smith, C.(Isl'ton S &amp; F'bury)


Lofthouse, Geoffrey
Spearing, Nigel


Loyden, Edward
Steel, Rt Hon David


McCartney, Hugh
Stott, Roger


McDonald, Dr Oonagh
Strang, Gavin


McKay, Allen (Penistone)
Straw, Jack


McKelvey, William
Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)


Mackenzie, Rt Hon Gregor
Thomas, Dr R. (Carmarthen)


Maclennan, Robert
Thompson, J. (Wansbeck)


McNamara, Kevin
Tinn, James


McTaggart, Robert
Wallace, James


McWilliam, John
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Madden, Max
Wareing, Robert


Marek, Dr John
Welsh, Michael


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
White, James


Martin, Michael
Wigley, Dafydd


Mason, Rt Hon Roy
Williams, Rt Hon A.


Maxton, John
Wilson, Gordon


Meacher, Michael
Winnick, David


Meadowcroft, Michael
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Michie, William
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Mikardo, Ian



Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)
Tellers for the Noes:


Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)
Mr. James Hamilton and Mr. Frank Haynes.


Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

Question accordingly agreed to.

Resolved,
That this House approves the Statement on the Defence Estimates 1984, contained in Cmnd. 9227.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered,
That, at this day's sitting, the Motion relating to Harbours, Docks, Piers and Ferries may be proceeded with until half-past Eleven o'clock, or for one and a half hours after it has been entered upon, whichever is the later.—[Mr. Douglas Hogg.]

Harbour Development

Mr. John Prescott: I beg to move,
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Control of Harbour Development (Revocation) Order 1984 (S.I., 1984, No. 522), dated 8th April 1984, a copy of which was laid before this House on 17th April, be revoked.
The motion concerns section 9 of the Harbours Act 1964. The Government's order is to revoke section 9 of the 1964 Act, and is a further example of the Government's ideological obsession with competition and the total rejection of the public interests and investments that are involved in our major port industries.
The motion rejects past Tory policy on docks and harbours. The 1964 legislation was an implementation from the Rochdale inquiry into the nature of our major ports, which was started in 1962. It clearly exposed the tremendous under-investment and deplorable conditions in the port industries in the early 1960s. The inquiry recommended the development of a national ports plan, which would be necessary for the development of our ports, and which required the establishment of a National Ports Authority to see that those investment plans were implemented and our port facilities modernised.
The then Tory Administration fully accepted the recommendations of the Rochdale inquiry but were not prepared to introduce a National Ports Authority with the power to see that proper and adequate investment was put into our ports. Instead, the Government established the National Ports Council which was really an advisory body with no teeth—the Government later called such bodies quangos — but which could at least advise the Government on the various competing demands for investment that were made by the ports.
The problem of under investment and inadequate facilities in the ports in the 1950s and 1960s were exposed by Lord Rochdale. The problems of the 1980s and even the 1990s, as shown by the recent report of the National Ports Council, reflect the switch of United Kingdom traffic to a more European oriented traffic, and the problems of our major ports. For example, the 15 major ports that the Rochdale inquiry considered were then responsible for about 80 per cent. of the traffic. Today, the figure must be about 50 per cent. That highlights the great problem in our ports, of a tremendous overcapacity—of over 50 per cent.—not only in conventional port investment, but in the more modern container investment, as we are witnessing at present in the growth of some of the ports.
The other problem of the 1980s is the growth of the small wharfs, which the Jones-Aldington inquiry looked into. It was set up by a previous Tory Administration. It examined the difficulties of major ports competing with small wharfs. The third problem is that of a depressed price structure reflecting the excess capacity in our ports, the growing uncertainty of port future and—

Mr. Tony Marlow: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Prescott: I shall not give way. Past interventions by the hon. Gentleman have never been adequate.
Previous Tory Administrations, flushed with the idea of competition, and usually in the first 12 months of office,

have argued that the industry must stand on its own feet, and must not receive subsidies. As we have said at this Dispatch Box before to previous Secretaries of State, ports such as London, Liverpool, the Cyde and so on all required resources and subsidies, and all received them later, with some form of adjustment in view of their labour requirements. The Government's desire for ports to stand on their own feet led to one Secretary of State abolishing the National Ports Council. I was a member of the Committee dealing with that Transport Act 1981 and on 12 March 1981, it was said:
The Secretary of State will, therefore, retain his Harbours Act powers in order to ensure that in the ports industry we will not have speculative investment taking place in port facilities where there are no customers and where there are no firm arrangements to ensure that traffic is there to give the genuine potential for commercial return on the investment."— [Official Report, Standing Committee E, 12 March 1981; c. 944.]
Hence the reason why the Government felt it necessary — they gave an assurance about it to the House — to retain section 9 of the Harbours Act so that they could still assess the quality and quantity of investment in our port developments.
The order will accentuate the present problems in our ports. The Secretary of State, again within a few months of entering office, excited at getting his hands on the lever of power, and obsessed with the idealogical desire to see compensation introduced everywhere, announced in a speech in April 1984, at a diner of the British Ports Association that I attended:
Our predecessors saw the ports as part of the infrastructure needing to be centrally planned, protected from so called 'wasteful' competiton, regulated by Government, with investment vigorously controlled by the state … We see the ports industry as a normal industry like any other. Ports can and should compete among themselves. We have made them compete with each other as well as the continental ports".
Here again is the belief that competition is the way to deal with excess capacity in the ports. That is the reason for the order. The Secretary of State is getting rid of his obligation and power of intervention. At the moment any port investment of over £3 million is considered by him.
This naive belief in the absolutism of competition shows an ignorance of port activities and of the industry. I shall give some examples. Felixstowe is a major non-scheme port, with tremendous growth in investment in containers. One must understand the operation of the grid system of charges, so that the Felixstowe port operators charge the same to the Clyde whisky producers to send a box of whisky from Scotland to Felixstowe as anyone sending goods from any yard outside the gates of Felixstowe. It cross-subsidises its charges to maximise the flow of containerisation through Felixstowe. To believe that a port can compete against that is sheer nonsense. The flow of charges that is geared by the container consortiums is designed to maximise the flow of traffic and reduce the advantages of ports near to them.

Mr. Christopher Chope: rose——

Mr. Prescott: No, I shall not give way, as I do not have time to do so. I have only 10 minutes in which to present the Opposition's case and many Back-Bench Members wish to participate in the debate.
Secondly, any port with £100 million worth of investment has been required to secure a return on that public investment. Such a port cannot hope to compete with a small wharf with an investment requirement of only


£500,000. In the area that I represent, small wharfs have taken 2 million or 3 million tonnes of traffic from the major ports because the ports find it impossible to compete on the present terms.
Thirdly, the Secretary of State says that our ports should compete with continental ports. I wish that he had read the Touche Ross report, which was produced some years ago, which drew attention to the costs that British ports carry for dredging, rates and the police. These costs are not carried by continental ports.

Mr. Jonathan Sayeed: And the dock labour scheme.

Mr. Prescott: I shall deal with the dock labour scheme in a moment. It seems that Conservative Members are obsessed with it. If the hon. Gentleman listens to my other argumets he may learn something.
The charges that are carried by British ports are not borne by their continental competitors. The Touche Ross report assessed the difference that it would make to the charges of the ports of Bristol, Southampton and London if the costs were lifted. I have a copy of the report and so I shall be able to educate the hon. Gentleman. The report suggested that the charges in Bristol would be reduced by 32 per cent., by 44 per cent. in London and by 50 per cent. in Southampton. It is nonsense to talk about competition against the background of the costs which our ports have to bear. The Government should give consideration to the complaints that are made by ports when they are asked to compete within the Government's comparative philosophy.
The present excess capacity can only be made worse by the removal of the order. The Government must take account of the 50 per cent. over-capacity—that is the minimum in conventional containers within our port systems — and the applications that have been made under the order since 1979. I am informed by parliamentary answers that since 1979 there have been 51 applications to the Secretary of State that have involved £360 million. About 70 per cent. of the applications were granted and about 30 per cent. were rejected. Presumably judgment was exercised by the Government. I accept that some applications were withdrawn.
In 1979, the average application involved £3 million. From 1980 to 1983, the average value of each application was about 10 million. The most recent application, which seems to have sparked off the desire to get rid of the order, is from Felixstowe for a new container development, which involves £70 million. That would be a considerable investment. The application reveals the importance of the Government retaining control. It shows that there should be a body such as a national ports council or a national ports authority to give advice to the Secretary of State.
There is excess capacity in our ports and the scale of investment that Felixstowe envisages would have an effect on many ports, including Felixstowe. That is a judgment that should be taken into account. Such investment will require infrastructure investment in road and rail. We have a roads policy that is designed to provide roads to ports, but we have roads to ports that are not taking traffic and ports that are getting traffic that are demanding investment in roads. That will be the position in Falmouth, as everyone knows the shortcomings in the road-rail connection. A problem will be created and there will be

a demand for the Government to invest in infrastructure development. I do not pass judgment on the Falmouth investment, because I do not know enough about it. However, I believe that the Government have a duty to assess the obligation to provide public investment to accompany private decisions. There need to be balanced judgments. Therefore, it is a scandal for the Government to choose this moment to abdicate major responsibilities.
If the new investment further undermines existing port development, which many dockers and authorities fear, including those in Felixstowe, which is a non-scheme port, the fear will grow that the Government desire to withdraw from controls and regulations and from the possibilities of maintaining the dock labour scheme. It is feared that they desire to do so in the name of competition.
The Secretary of State said in April that it was his intention to eliminate the distortion. Does he believe that United Kingdom port costs are too high compared with those of our continental competitors? Does that mean that the Secretary of State will tackle the shipping conferences that fix the lines of export goods from the United Kingdom, about which shippers constantly complain? No, he does nothing about that. Does it mean that he will tackle the cross-grid pricing, which affects some ports disadvantageously, such as Felixstowe? No, he will not do anything about that. Will he tackle the unfair extra cost that United Kingdom ports carry compared to their continental competitors? No, there is not a sound from him about that.
It means that the Secretary of State intends to take on the costs of the dock labour scheme. It is the game of tackling what he sees as entrenched Labour trade union interest in the dock system and scheme. He would do himself a favour if he considered the Jones-Aldington report, which was accepted by a Tory Administration. It shows the difficulties that exist in the industry, and provides solutions to deal with them.
The Secretary of State seems to be giving a nod to those employers who wish to end the dock labour scheme and return to the conditions of the 1960s which Lord Rochdale condemned. If he thinks that the battle with the miners is bloody, so it will be with the dockers about the dock labour scheme. I wonder if the Minister will tell the House what the Government's intentions are regarding the conditions in the industry and the dock labour scheme.
The revocation of the Order is an abdication of Government responsibility, but it will not free them from the consequences of their actions. The problems facing our ports are as great as they were in the 1960s although they may be different in character.
The Government cannot disregard their duty to balance public and private investment within limited resources. The Government must retain control of the important developments of the interlink between water-borne transport and land-borne transport. The ports are an essential part of our economy, and the Government will soon regret their decision to abdicate responsibility for their development.

Mr. Michael Stern: The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) spoke at length about the iniquities of revoking the section. It is worthwhile to look at the wording of the order to see the 19th-century language on which it is based.
The Harbours Act 1964 states:


the Minister … may by order prohibit … construction … of a harbour.
How in 1984 can a Minister have an interest in prohibiting the construction of a harbour? As Opposition Members continually remind us, we have a high level of unemployment. Would they wish the Minister to prohibit commercial development, if that increased employment?
The Control of Harbour Development Order 1964, which was revoked, states:
no person engaged in … harbour operations, shall undertake … any project … except under an authorisation … by the Minister.
That may have seemed appropriate when the order was made, but that is the language not of a modern industrial society but of Stalinism and Mussolini-type Fascism, in which all commercial decisions can be authorised only by the Minister representing the State. Therefore, I wholly commend the Minister's decision to revoke the Order.
In large parts of the United Kingdom our port industry has become totally ossified. We have one of the finest distribution systems for goods and services of any industrialised country, yet world opinion generally is that its quality is easily stopped at the ports.
To take the example of the port that I am proud to represent in part, the port of Bristol is struggling to make a living, partly because of the weight of capital debt and partly because, wherever it attempts to bring in new initiatives and to take the most advantage of transport infrastructure, and the fact of its long tradition as a port, it has to fight against the twin weight of trade union and governmental feeling that they have a right to a finger in every decision in every port. Those twin attitudes are holding back the development of our ports, and it is the revocation of part of that attitude that the Opposition are criticising.

Mr. Robert Parry: Is the hon. Gentleman aware, with regard to the previous applications that were made for the building of a container terminal at Falmouth, that the port of Bristol opposed the proposal?

Mr. Stern: It is not surprising. The hon. Gentleman bears out my point. Bristol opposed it because people are still tied to a 19th-century attitude.
If it is possible for a commercial organisation to develop at Falmouth, or anywhere else in the country, I am delighted that the Minister has said that he will not stop such a venture from going ahead, that commercial criteria will apply, and that the private market must now make its own independent judgment of any proposals that come forward. I hope that the Minister will bear in mind, if he receives any requests from the city or from the port for the consideration of development to increase the infrastructure, the fact that my constituents, who are already paying for past mismanagement by Government and by the unions of the port of Bristol, will not wish to pay twice in their taxes for the infrastructure of another port. I should like some reassurance from the Minister on this matter. Since the Minister is correctly adopting a stand-off attitude towards ports, I hope that he will make sure that those ports pay for themselves, not only in terms of private investment but also in terms of any necessary public investment.
I see a great future for the ports of this country. I see a new spirit developing in the port of Bristol with a greater realisation of the commercial realities that, in order to survive, it has to trade profitably and more cheaply than

its competitors. I see a realisation developing that competition is to be encouraged rather than to be feared, as in the past.
I hope that the House and the Minister will reject the outdated and dangerous arguments of the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East, because there is no future for the ports if we try to drag them back into the 1960s.

Mr. Robert Parry: I support the excellent case put so eloquently by my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott). My hon. Friend has a good knowledge of harbours, docks, piers and ferries, having represented Hull for many years and having for many years sailed from the port of Liverpool.
My hon. Friend visited the port of Liverpool earlier this year. He accompanied me. my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Garston (Mr. Loyden) and other Liverpool Members to a meeting with senior management of the port of Liverpool and trade union representatives. He is well aware of the national position and also of the current feeling in Liverpool.
I declare an interest as a Member sponsored by the Transport and General Workers Union. As the name of my constituency denotes—Liverpool, Riverside—I represent a dockside area. My grandfathers, two of my brothers and numerous cousins and uncles worked in the docks for many years. Many of my friends and constituents also work there. I speak for the dock workers of Liverpool, because I know their feelings as they fear for their jobs. I am one of the few hon. Members in the House actually born in the dockland area, as was my hon. Friend the Member for Garston. In the words of the old Liverpool folk song "In my Liverpool Home", we were
born in Liverpool down by the dock.
I am wholly opposed to the order, because it could open the floodgates to operators for harbour developments which would affect existing ports. It is essential that the Minister retains control over developments exceeding £3 million. There is a general agreement that there is overcapacity in existing ports. If the company called the Falmouth Container Terminal is given the green light to go ahead with the development of a container terminal at Falmouth, that will seriously affect all the major ports, especially London and Liverpool. The dock industry needs another container terminal like it needs a hole in the head.
During the past couple of years I have tabled a number of questions on the Falmouth application. I led a deputation of hon. Members and dock workers to meet the then Minister, the hon. Member for Birmingham, Hall Green (Sir R. Eyre). We told him in no uncertain terms that the Merseyside dock workers and those at other ports were opposed to the application and that industrial action would be taken.
My hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, East has clearly expressed the strong feelings of those employed in the industry. The present container terminal at Seaforth is heavily under utilised. It is no exaggeration to say that if that terminal is seriously affected it could mean a death blow for the port of Liverpool.
The Mersey Docks and Harbour Company has reported a profit of just under £6 million for 1983, following a loss of more than £9 million in the previous year. It is also in profit in the current year. It is nonsensical that the Government, through their abdication of powers, could be


responsible for the closure of any port after the money they have spent on severance payments to reduce the labour force.
The number of people employed in the port industry has declined. When the Government were elected in 1979, 63,500 people were employed on the docks. The latest figure, for March 1983, was 44,500, and that figure has since been greatly reduced. A written reply on 4 June showed that in the second quarter of 1979, Birkenhead and Liverpool had 5,406 registered dock workers. By the fourth quarter of 1983 that figure had been reduced to 2,126. At Hull there were 1,856 in the second quarter of 1979, but by the fourth quarter of 1983 there were only 973—a reduction by half. For Southampton the figures are 1,732 and 1,130 respectively. In Bristol the figures are 1,248 and, in the fourth quarter of 1983, 603. The hon. Member for Bristol, North-West (Mr. Stern) should bear those figures in mind. On the Clyde the figures are 542 and 260.
Those figures show how many jobs have already been lost in the ports in England and Scotland. No doubt some of my hon. Friends who represent London constituencies could give the figures for London.
The severance payments that have been made to registered dock workers under the Jones-Aldington arrangements are staggering. From May 1979 to 30 April 1984, a total of £183,284,000 was spent. It is the economics of the madhouse to give the go-ahead signal to any private developer to exacerbate an already critical situation in the ports. The Harbours Act 1964 controls developments of new ports costing £3 million or more, and it could be argued that, with the industry in its present state, all new port developments should be covered by that legislation.
Uncontrolled developments of cargo-handling facilities over the past 15 years, both on small wharves and on a large scale, have had a dramatic adverse effect on the traditional ports and have made the present and future position of many of them so uncertain as to discourage investment in new plant and the proper maintenance of docks, quays and warehousing. Existing United Kingdom port facilities are, on recorded trends of average increases since 1972, sufficient to accommodate any future increase in traffic through our ports.

Mr. Marlow: The hon. Gentleman has just said—effectively, for the second time—that there is a surplus capacity of ports in this country. If there is a surplus capacity, why is he frightened of people setting up new capacity? Is it because the new capacity might be more efficient, more effective or cheaper, or provide a better service for the customer? If that is the case, why is he against it? What is so different about the ports which makes the hon. Gentleman opposed to investment in ports, whereas in the motor industry, or various other industries, he would favour new factories, new plants and new facilities?

Mr. Parry: I have made it clear that I am speaking on behalf of the dock workers, my union and my constituents. My constituency has the unenviable record of having the highest level of male unemployment in the United Kingdom—nearly 40 per cent.—and the effect of any dramatic closure or massive job losses in the docks on the port of Liverpool, the city of Liverpool and my

constituents would be tremendous. No case can be made for developments of new container terminals such as at Falmouth.
The development of facilities at existing United Kingdom ports has only been possible at the expense of other British ports and at the expense of unemployment for dock workers, which has made necessary Government financial intervention in an attempt to rectify a situation which may still lead to the collapse of one or both of our major ports—London and Liverpool.
That is the view of the national secretary of the docks and waterways group of the Transport and General Workers Union, who is au fait with the fears of the dock workers throughout England, Scotland and Wales.
It is not only the dock workers and the TGWU who are opposed to the Falmouth development. The Cornwall branch of the Council for the Preservation of Rural England is also opposed to it. Cornwall Transport 2000, the Falmouth Civic Society, the Falmouth Container Action Group, the Mersey Docks and Harbour Company and the Port of Bristol Authority are also opposed to it. The Mersey Docks and Harbour Company is watching the situation closely as, although the port is now viable, the recovery is fragile and the loss of any container traffic to a new container terminal at Falmouth or anywhere else would make its future insecure.
Loss of trade would mean that specialised equipment at the Seaforth terminal would be even more under-utilised. It is equipment which successive Governments and the taxpayer have helped to finance. Less work will lead to further surplus labour, the cost of which to the Mersey Docks and Harbour Company approached £2 million in 1983. If ship owners switch their business from Liverpool to Falmouth the prospects of the newly created freeport would be seriously affected and the number of cargo owners who take advantage of the freeport status at Liverpool would be restricted. The port would not be capable of providing the tupe of service that industry in the north-west demands—I am thinking of large industrial complexes such as BICC, ICI and Pilkington Brothers, all of which are based near Liverpool.
The past year has been a period of stabilisation and consolidation for the port of Liverpool, and the proposed development at Falmouth or anywhere else would put those achievements at considerable risk. I am surprised that the hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Thornton) is not here, as the Seaforth terminal is based in his constituency. I should have thought that he would be here. The Minister's decision shows that he has decided to abdicate his responsibility for making a decision on the Falmouth application and any other similar developments. He is acting like Pontius Pilate. He is washing his hands of his responsibilities by supporting the Government's policy of a free-for-all economy.
I conclude by quoting a letter written by Mr. John Connolly, the national secretary of the TGWU's dock and waterways group, dated 14 May. He says:
We are convinced that the implications for workers in the ports industry arising from this decision are of a nature serious enough to warrant taking industrial action on a national scale if the developments at Falmouth commence.
At a recent meeting of the docks and waterways group national committee, a decision to that effect was taken. That is no idle threat. A few years ago I met some national shop stewards and workers. I knew their feelings then. I have since met them again, and they are extremely angry.


We could have serious trouble in the docks. Nobody wants a national dock strike. The Government certainly do not, and I am sure that neither the TGWU nor the port authorities want one. The Minister should seriously consider the warnings that have been given.

Mr. David Penhaligon: I wish to ask the Minister questions rather than to argue about this proposal. I must confess that, although I would not argue for no controls, I have always found that one of the most convincing arguments for investment, whether in Cornwall, Scotland, Liverpool or East Anglia, is people being prepared to put their money behind a project. That is not the only criterion, but one cannot help being impressed when people put their own money in.
The Falmouth harbour development does not fall within my constituency, although it is within the Carrick council of which I probably represent the largest portion here. Many of my constituents look across the bay towards Falmouth, so the development will probably affect my constituency as much as any other.
On the whole, I welcome any hope that Falmouth has for development. Hon. Members have spoken of unemployment in their constituencies, including the rate in Liverpool, and I agree that they are tragic figures, but they are not far short of the unemployment rates among men in Falmouth, of up to 30 per cent. We do not want a competition in agony by quoting our unemployment rates. The solution to Britain's unemployment problems does not lie in one area arguing with another. Instead, let us look at each proposal as it arises and say whether it is good or bad.
As hon. Members will be aware, what we are discussing revolves around the Falmouth Container Terminal Act 1971, a copy of which I managed to obtain after some difficulty. That is a remarkable measure which gives enormous permissions to the company; and many people in my constituency would like to see that great God-given natural resource, Falmouth harbour, developed so that it can provide employment for the community it serves, as all logic suggests it should.
That being the case, it is clear that many people are concerned about exactly what is being proposed for Falmouth. This is the biggest single planning application that may have affected the good county of Cornwall. Certainly it is the biggest in living memory that has affected the district of Carrick.
Consider some of the permissions that are given. The references to works states in works No. 1 that it can, for 1,250 ft north-east, build a pier and, on the end of that, for 1,200 ft north north-east, build another one. Under works No. 2, the pier is to be 1,050 ft north north-east, with another 300 ft north-east and another 2,200 ft east south-east. Apparently the second works terminate 200 ft south of the first works. One gathers that that is the gate through which the boats enter.
This is a massive development which would spread one third of the way from Falmouth across to St. Mawes. It cannot be dismissed out of hand, and a number of questions must be answered. In normal circumstances, one would expect such questions to be asked and answered under what one has understood to be the normal planning application procedure. Clause 14 of the 1971 Act gives the Minister power to demand an hydrographic study of the estuary. I gather that that provision in the Act still stands.

Such a study would reveal whether the estuary would silt up quicker or slower or not change at all. It would also show whether the sewage which Falmouth and Penryn produce—that would be from the landward side of this large obstacle—would succeed in clearing itself.
One must also consider the wildlife in the harbour. This whole river basin is an extremely beautiful area which already provides a considerable leisure industry, and one would expect it to provide more. Some believe that the harbour would provide work, but in, say, 25 years' time we could find more leisure jobs having been destroyed as a result of this development. I do not know the answer to these issues, and when my constituents question me about them, I have to admit that not only do I not know the answers but that, as matters stand, there is no way in which my local authority can take the necessary steps to obtain the information.
The Minister should conduct a full hydrographic study of the entire river basin. I am told that such a study might cost £300,000, but, relative to the damage that could be caused if the development went wrong, that might be a very small sum indeed. County and district councillors are beginning to express concern about the matter.
The 1971 Act was passed before I became a Member of the House, although I must confess to a degree of guilt in that it was renewed in 1980 and I was not aware of its full significance at that time. I had always assumed that the powers under the 1964 Act gave the community a longstop, an appeal to the Minister, so that the questions to which I have referred could be posed, considered and answered, followed by those giving the answers being questioned by the people concerned. Without that facility, there will remain a lingering concern on the part of the local community, a concern which will remain until their fears are proved to be false.
I have outlined my basic attitude towards what the Minister has done. However, there is some fear that protection for that beautiful area may be reduced. On the whole, I wish things well. If there was a public inquiry, I hope that answers would be provided to my questions. There would seem to be an employment opportunity in an area—Cornwall—that has the lowest wages in Great Britain. No doubt a good number of members of the Transport and General Workers Union would be employed, as that union is dominant in the area and does a good job for its members.
Therefore, there are questions to be asked. I am not being at all aggressive when I seek an assurance from the Minister. I suspect that tonight will be our last chance to discuss this issue on the Floor of the House before someone is halfway across Falmouth bay driving piles and digging large works. I hope that the Minister will give an assurance that on behalf of the community of Cornwall and those who want to work in the docks and preserve the chance of earning a living in other areas, he will at least insist on a full hydrographic survey being made of the entire bay. Anything less than that would be inadequate compared with the damage that may be done.

Mr. Donald Anderson: Let us at least agree from the outset that the proposal to abolish the provisions of section 9 of the 1964 Act are consistent with the Government's general market philosophy. There is to be a "bonfire of controls", whether or not those controls are appropriate. It has been asked why the Government


should stand in the way of entrepreneurs who are prepared to risk their money in harbour developments, and possibly to create employment, regardless of whether there is excess capacity in our harbours. It seems to be said that the market should rule, without any qualification.
One has to concede that, under the current system, if there was no objection from the Government, the promoters could claim that they had Government approval for particular projects. The arguments thus adduced have a certain surface appeal, but I believe that the abolition of the current control beyond £3 million removes even the residual Government power to delay development for considerations of wider national implication, as argued strongly by my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mr. Parry). I believe that the Government have the wrong approach, and to some extent my views coincide with those of the British Ports Association. It shares that reservation, although I accept that it is not in favour of the basic concept of resource planning, on which the 1964 Act was based.
Section 9 can be a useful long stop in preventing major harbour developments which are irresponsible from a national viewpoint and damaging to other ports, and which could be undertaken by powerful and wealthy interests on a speculative basis. As Conservative Members have argued, harbour authorities are commercial bodies, but they are not just that. They share some of the characteristics of public utilities. A major port development that is financed by the market may have, as a consequence, substantial infrastructural investment that falls on public authorities. Therefore, the public has an interest in such developments. The questions posed by the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Penhaligon) are relevant in that context.
I shall briefly cite some examples that I have come across in my parliamentary experience. They show that the public interest may be ignored if the order is accepted. I think, for example, of the Bristol Portbury development in the late 1960s. I concede, of course, that the National Ports Council agreed that development at the time, in the face of much opposition, but it had a substantial effect on the ports of the then British Transport Docks Board in the Bristol channel, and substantial regional employment and strategic planning implications. All those are proper matters for public consideration. Now the burden of carrying that lame white elephant in the Bristol channel falls on Bristol's ratepayers.
Secondly, I think of the ferry terminal project at the Pembroke dock. In the mid-1960s, a company at the ferry port of Swansea, which is in my constituency, B and I, which is an Irish Government-owned company, decided to relocate from Swansea to Pembroke dock, and this was financed by money from the European regional development fund. It left public facilities, financed by the public, redundant at the ferry port at Swansea, with no customers for the past seven years or so. Clearly, there was a public interest that was worth airing and considering in this major port development.
Thirdly, there is Falmouth, which does not affect my port of Swansea. Swansea is far more affected by the smaller wharf developments in the Neath estuary — of the sort described by my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott)—which do not have to carry the overheads that Swansea does, and which

can have a substantially adverse affect on employment in my constituency. It is obvious that the deep sea container ports are worried by the development at Falmouth. I make no point on the merits of this development, but there are clear implications, if the development goes ahead, for road and rail infrastructure developments in the west country. For example, one would anticipate section 8 railway grants and other public subsidies and investments, which would arise directly as a consequence of allowing this project to go ahead.
All these examples are decisions in which the public interest is involved. The move to the market—letting the entrepreneurs risk their money where they will—is an illusion in harbour development. Clearly, in every case, there are public expenditure and regional implications that should not be ducked, whether that public investment decision be by section 8 grant, by road developments or by ERDF grants. Therefore, it is wrong to remove the possibility of state intervention, particularly at this time of excess capacity in our ports industry and to avoid the opportunity for a wider debate on the implications for the public interest.

Mr. Jonathan Sayeed: I can understand the hon. Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mr. Parry) being against the revocation of this order. He has a profound interest in a particular port. As a Member who has asked for money for Bristol, I am embarrassed when I have to remember that we are not sent here purely as constituency Members, but also in the national interest.
I find it extraordinary—although I understand what the hon. Gentleman says—that the Labour party cannot understand what has happened to the ports. What has happened to them is that there are fewer ships because there are bigger ships, and those ships have a far faster turnround, there are fewer cargoes to deliver because of the recession, there are shorter journeys, and the economic realities have meant the trade has moved from the west coast to the east coast, from break bulk to container and therefore there is less requirement for the facilities that the ports offer. We have a large number of ports, but some of them are not capable of taking the larger ships. We have too many ports—not too few. The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) complained about the Conference line. I was a little baffled by that, because the Conference line does not necessarily put up port charges. It has semi-cartel system for fixing rates and sharing cargoes, even when it is uneconomic to send cargoes to certain ports. He ignored pilotage, and I ask my hon. Friend the Minister to deal with it. The vast number of pilots have put up the cost to port users. However, I understand that that does not come under this measure.
Another reason for the very high cost of ports is the dock labour scheme. There is no way anyone can ignore that. It is obvious that the jobs for life system of the dock labour scheme has put up the costs of ports well beyond the cost to our continental rivals. Consideration should be given to increasing severance payments so that the number of dockers can be reduced; and new entrants as dockers should not come under the old scheme.
The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East talked about the grid system as though it was a horrific idea


invented at Felixstowe. I can tell him, because he obviously does not know, that it is in operation at most other major ports in this country.

Mr. Prescott: So how do we get competition?

Mr. Sayeed: If the hon. Member wants an answer to that, it is very simple: there is competition because Felixstowe, which is a non-scheme port, operates efficiently and scheme ports do not. Despite having a narrow constituency interest, possibly, in keeping the order, I support its revocation because it is in the national good and I hope that this little measure is just a forerunner of the continued deregulation of ports and their progress to economic viability.

Mr. Allan Roberts: I am pleased to follow the hon. Member for Bristol, East (Mr. Sayeed) and also the hon. Member for Bristol, North-West (Mr. Stern), both of whom made speeches attacking their own port and its future. Let us make no mistake about it. This order, which will revoke the power of the Minister to control port development, will attack every scheme port in the country, not only Liverpool, but Bristol and others, especially those on the west coast, which trade not with Europe but with the rest of the world, because that is where the balance of our trade is.
The hon. Member for Bristol, North-West asked why the Minister should have power to prohibit the construction of harbour. I would ask why a Minister should have power to prohibit the construction of a motorway or why he should have power to prohibit anything which is anti-social. Of course Ministers should have power to take decisions on balance in relation to the public interest on harbours and motorways. The motorway analogy is not false, because the consequence of this order will be that an unnecessary container terminal will be built at Falmouth, on the wrong side of Britain. Because of the revocation of the order the Minister will not be able to prevent construction from going ahead, even though his predecessor, the hon. Member for Birmingham, Hall Green (Sir R. Eyre) gave assurances on that when my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mr. Parry) and I took a delegation to see him.
The building of the Falmouth terminal will affect Bristol, as it will affect Liverpool and Felixstowe. A large part of the port of Liverpool, including the container terminal and the grain terminal, is in my constituency. We took a delegation of dock shop stewards and others to see the then Minister, the hon. Member for Hall Green who gave one undertaking. He did not say that they would never give the go ahead for the Falmouth development but he said that it would have to justify itself if it was to get the go ahead on the basis of attracting new trade; not trade from other ports such as Liverpool or Bristol, but trade from the continent of Europe, for instance. I challenge the Minister to say clearly whether he has been given the undertakings that are necessary for that undertaking by the hon. Member for Hall Green to be borne out. I do not believe there is any chance of the Falmouth terminal, when it is built, surviving without attracting trade from Bristol and Liverpool.
The Government talk about competition and free enterprise. What has free port status granted to Liverpool by the Government got to do with competition and free

enterprise when Falmouth and Felixstowe do not have that status? We beat Felixstowe, thanks, we are told, to the intervention of the Secretary of State for the Environment, the Minister with responsibility for Merseyside. They will not have freeports. If Falmouth terminal is built, the Government will destroy at a stroke any value which is attributable to the freeports and which has come to Liverpool. They will destroy the experiment. Any trade which Liverpool's freeport would have attracted will go to Falmouth, if it is to be a non-scheme port, or to other non-scheme ports. We need to know from the Minister whether Falmouth is to be such a port.
I clearly remember meeting the hon. Member for Hall Green, the then Minister, who was subsequently sacked by the Prime Minister. We put many arguments to him. I remember the chairman of the dock shop stewards, Dennis Kelly, asking whether there were any natterjack toads in Falmouth. He said that if there were the terminal would not be built, because natterjack toads are a protected species and one cannot build where they are. The environmentalists are much stronger and more powerful than the dock shop stewards, he argued. He is quite right. But, whether or not they are more powerful, the dockers and the Minister have made it clear that there will probably be a battle about the scheme and scheme ports and the protection that dockers enjoy under that scheme. That is why, as my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) said from the Front Bench, the Government put the miners first, and they might put the dockers second. Dockers will not take that lying down. They will fight to protect their jobs and the scheme.
I want to know from the Minister whether the revocation of the order is the first step towards destroying the scheme. If it is, the Government are biting off far more than they can chew and they are taking on a lot more than they imagine.
The port of Liverpool is profitable and competitive. It is the slimmer, trimmer port. In its advertisements it is the slimmer, trimmer freeport. In co-operation with the trade unions — the TGWU and others — a lot of labour has been shed. The port has reduced its manpower dramatically. It is making a profit. It is doing everything for which the Government have asked and has implemented all the requests and taken into account the pilot studies done by consultants who came to the ports to find out what needed to be done. Tonight, the Government could be destroying at a stroke all that has been done by management, by the unions and by Governments, both Conservative and Labour.
One talks about why competition should matter, and why should there not be freedom of competition. If we destroy the port of Liverpool and take trade away from it to any extent, and if that trade goes to Falmouth or elsewhere, the port will be destroyed. The social consequences of suffering, job losses and public expenditure in the hinterland of Liverpool will be tragic and dramatic. The Government are playing with massive amounts of extra public expenditure as a consequence of establishing new freeports. We already have too many of them. The rules of a free market are not taken into account at all.
If we believe in a free market and free trade, let us import goods. The hon. Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow), who is a farmer, intervened earlier to attack subsidies. It is ironic that he talked about free competition. If we are in favour of free competition, let Britain buy food


where she can in the world, as cheaply as possible. Let us not have tariff barriers. Food could come in through Liverpool. There would be imports of cane sugar and rum from the Caribbean. Liverpool would not be in these difficulties if we truly believed in free competition. Labour candidates for the Merseyside West and Merseyside East constituencies did so well in the recent European elections because of the damage that restrictions and tariffs imposed by the Common Market did to the port of Liverpool.
If we talk about competition, as the hon. Member for Bristol, East did and about continental ports, we have only to consider Hamburg. I am all in favour of free and fair competition with the port of Hamburg. Let us have the conditions of the port of Hamburg in Liverpool. Let us have the dredging of the estuary, lighting, roads and footpaths and the policing paid for by the appropriate Government grant, in exactly the same way as in Hamburg, and even in Rotterdam. Let us have fair competition with European ports. We would attract much more trade away from Europe and into Liverpool and, if Falmouth is ever built—if the order goes through—into Falmouth, too.
The hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Penhaligon) produced the classic Liberal argument: he is for Falmouth port if it works, but he is against it if it does not. I am against it whether or not it works; I am especially against it if it works, because the social consequences will be dramatic. However, I agree with the hon. Gentleman that the way to deal with unemployment in Falmouth, Merseyside and Bristol is not to play one area off against the other, or to offer one goodie to Liverpool, such as the free port, and another goodie to Falmouth, such as the new container terminal. We need a complete change in the economic and industrial policies of the Government, which means planning ports and docks policy. It means considering the direction of shipping—[Laughter.] Hon. Members may laugh about the direction of shipping, but, as my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, East said, the positioning of motorways and other infrastructure indirectly affects shipping, and the Government, who take such decisions about the direction of shipping——

Mr. Sayeed: The hon. Gentleman is suggesting moving traffic from the east coast to the west coast. Does he recognise the difference in cost between sending a ship from the east coast to the west coast and sending a truck overland from east to west, whether or not there is a motorway? It would cost about £2,000 to £3,000 to get a ship round the coast, but a truck would cost only about £200.

Mr. Roberts: As I said, the arguments are fallacious, and I shall not examine them now, because I do not have time. There is already an indirect direction of shipping, and the free market ushered in by this order, which will distort the economy of our ports, could have severe social consequences, severe consequences for public expenditure, and could destroy everything that even this Government have done to develop the port of Liverpool. The consequences could be tragic not only for Liverpool and Bristol, but for every port in Britain, whether on the east or west coast. I hope that the House will oppose the order.

Mr. Eddie Loyden: It is significant that the Secretary of State for Transport should be listening to this debate because, during the passage of the Dock Work Regulation Act 1976, he was the most vociferous anti-dock worker from the Opposition Benches identified by the docks and waterways executive committee of the Transport and General Workers Union at that time. We must remove the arguments from Falmouth to what the Government intend for the docks industry and the ports transport industry. Falmouth may not be massively important to the future of the docks industry. However, having heard about the Secretary of State's performances in Committee, and the attitude of the Government to the National Dock Labour Board, it is clear that the Government wish to wreck the board's scheme. They have made it clear in every debate in the House that they intend to destroy the scheme.
In the post-war period, Liverpool failed to get the investment necessary to transform it from a long, winding river and estuary into a deep-water port, soon enough because those who controlled the destiny of the port had a vested interest. They were both the tenants and the landlords of the ports, as is true of all traditional British ports.
Before the war, some dockers were casual labourers. It was possible for about 24,000 registered dock workers to be on the stand every morning looking for work. Some 20 per cent. or 30 per cent. of them might be employed and the rest would go home and sign on the dole. That situation prevailed in the ports before the National Dock Labour Board was introduced and established. No matter what arguments are used, it is clear that the Government want to return to the basis of casual labour in the transport industry. To break the back of those in the traditional ports, the establishment of new deep-water ports has been at the forefront of Governments' minds in the whole of the post-war period.
It is a question not only of Falmouth but of how the Government are proceeding to break the back of the trade unions in the docks industry, and therefore the back of the registered dock workers. The Government abhor and hate the National Dock Labour Board, and have made it clear on every occasion that the issue has been debated in the House. There was a struggle in the docks industry to establish civilised — not good — conditions compared with when thousands of dock workers presented themselves to be chosen, almost like animals, by the overseer. That is the sort of world that the Government want to return to. The Falmouth situation is a further opportunity of breaking the national ports structure and the National Dock Labour Board.
We should consider the number of jobs that have been lost in Liverpool. Sympathy constantly pours out by the train load from Conservative Benches. Since 1962, 12,000 jobs—nigh on 14,000 jobs if one goes back a year or two before that—have been lost in the docks industry, to registered dock workers. There are now fewer than 3,000 people employed as registered dock workers in the port of Liverpool. The consequence of the development of ports is that the country is now "overported".
The hon. Member for Bristol, East (Mr. Sayeed) argued about competition. I wonder whether, if people start building factories in Liverpool, and if there is a new car industry on Merseyside, people will argue that that is part


of competition. People argue competition when it suits their ideological purpose. The docks industry in Merseyside has developed and the men have fought for better conditions, but the Government will add to the problems through the establishment of deep-water ports in other parts of the country.
The Government have contributed largely to the demise of Merseyside. The docks industry was central to its economy. The ancillary and related industries were attracted to the port because there was warehousing and transport. Advantages have been gained through co-operation by the Transport and General Workers Union, the union operating in the port for the Mersey Docks and Harbour Company. Nothing should undermine that.
In Liverpool, there are six miles of derelict dockland and a major deep-water port at the mouth of the river that are now capable of dealing with modern container roll on, roll off systems and any system that is necessary in modern dock technology. There is no argument for further ports being developed. We are not against, nor should we be against, another port being established in any other part of the country, if it was essential, but it could be done only at the expense of traditional ports. They have already been run down, so that fewer people are employed there, and businesses related to the ports have gone. The whole economy of places such as Liverpool has been driven downwards because the port no longer plays an important part in the local economy. The Government are arguing that the development of ports should be given a free hand, but controls are not confined to ports, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bootle (Mr. Roberts) has said. There is planning control in many other sectors, and why should it not exist in the ports?
Registered dock workers are losing employment opportunities. For example, Glasgow is likely to lose 50 per cent. of its registered dockers. The losses are not confined to Liverpool, for they are to be found in all the traditional ports. They are suffering as a consequence of the Government's policies. It is clear that the Government have no concept of the real nature of the port and transport industry. It is clear also that the Government wish to establish a deep-water port at Falmouth and to undermine existing ports. Further, it is clear that they wish to undermine the National Dock Labour Board. It is their self-confessed ambition to do away with it.
I am a member of the Transport and General Workers Union, and I spent 28 years working in the transport industry. I can tell the Government that dockers hold sacred the retention of the board. If the Government feel, in spite of all that has been said, that they can undermine and eventually demolish the board, they will come up against the greatest possible opposition from registered dock workers and ancillary workers. We are faced with a serious attempt by the Government to undermine the scheme, to make further inroads into the registration of dock workers and to abolish the conditions which have been established over many years of struggle by dock workers and trade unions.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. David Mitchell): I have two main reasons for rejecting the Opposition's motion. First, I believe that the fears which have been expressed are unjustified and exaggerated. I shall seek to illustrate why I take that view as I deal with a number of issues which

have been raised by individual hon. Members. Secondly, the debate has demonstrated the old-fashioned and outdated concepts which lie behind the Opposition's thinking on port policy.
We are an exporting nation, and we are facing cutthroat competition in world markets where we have to fight inch by inch to get opportunities to sell our goods abroad. It is essential that we should be in a position to enable our exporters to compete successfully. We suffer the disadvantage of being an island. Most of our raw materials have to come in from abroad as do many semifinished products. All our exports have to cross the sea. It is essential in an effort to protect jobs in manufacturing industry that we minimise cost disadvantages in going through ports and in suffering the penalty of being an island that is separated from its markets.
It is true that jobs in our exporting industries are dependent upon our ability to compete, and that means that we must have ports in the right place responding to the changing shipper requirements. The needs of ship operators, importers and exporters are changing constantly and it is impossible to foresee the right place in which future port developments should take place.
The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) hankered after the period of the Rochdale report. He is right to say that that report was the origination of section 9 of the Harbours Act 1964. That itself demonstrates the weakness of the assumption that Government, Ministers or committees can foresee where future port development should take place.
The Rochdale Committee foresaw a need to concentrate new port development on selected existing ports. In the intervening period the committee was proved to be wholly wrong. Ship sizes meant that ports had to move downstream to estuaries, which was not foreseen. Our entry into the European Community and the alteration in trading patterns meant that we had to develop ports on the east coast at the expense of ports on the west coast. None of that was seen at the time of the Committee. North sea oil meant that terminals have had to be built there. In its exhaustive inquiry, the Rochdale Committee lumped together Harwich, Parkeston Quay, and Felixstowe as minor ports, which did not matter nationally; and Dover was not even mentioned. Yet today Felixstowe is in the top half dozen container ports in Europe, and Dover is the busiest ro-ro port in Europe. In older parts of Liverpool, Preston, and in the upper London docks there have been unfortunate closures. In other words, the scene is constantly changing, and even the wisest Committee, sitting for the longest time and studying in the greatest depth, anticipated future needs wildly incorrectly.
The real question is: how do we determine whether, and if so when, changing demand warrants new investment? There are two basic options. Either one believes that there is a fountain of wisdom in the hands of Ministers—the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East does not seem to think that there is such in my hands, nor even in the hands of the Secretary of State—or one relies on the investor, whether private or institutional, to decide whether a facility is missing so much so that it is worth the vast expenditure that is required today to develop new facilities.
I shall examine those propositions. Do hon. Members think that Ministers are better at investment appraisal than investors, and, if so, what is the evidence for it? Is it that Ministers should decide on political grounds and overrule


the market? Should Ministers defy the needs of a shipper to protect a constituency interest and, by so doing, saddle the exporter with higher costs than are necessary? The changes which hon. Gentlemen fear will not be made unless substantial cost savings can be made. New ports will not attract cargo unless it is cost effective to use them. The real risk is the fossilisation of yesterday's ports at the expense of competition for tomorrow. The hon. Member for Bootle (Mr. Roberts) was honest enough to recognise that what inevitably follows from what he sought is the direction of shipping. That view would not commend itself to many hon. Members, or to the shipping industry. The fundamental question that one cannot escape, about which hon. Members have expressed anxiety, is that, if a new port is to be developed, it will cost a substantial sum of money. That can be worthwhile to the investors only if it can attract substantial amounts of cargo. It can attract substantial amounts of cargo only if it can do it cheaper than the existing ports. That opportunity should be available to the exporters of the country so that the jobs of those who work in manufacturing industry can be protected by the opportunities to sell successfully abroad.
I deal next with some of the specific points raised. On the suggestion that new proposals would wreck existing ports, an existing port has major advantage, because its expenditure has been written off, and new investment will be expensive to service. There is a significant cost advantage where old investment has taken place to extend a new port or to create a new port. The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East also argued that at present there is excess capacity, and it can only be made worse by the order. He illustrated that by saying that some 30 per cent. of applications had been rejected, or withdrawn, over a particular period. I am sorry to say that the facts do not bear him out. Over the last 20 years, there have been 200 applications and, I repeat, only seven refusals. In the past five years, 23 applications have been authorised, and one has been refused. The last Labour Government were more generous, because they authorised 46 approvals, and only one was refused. If the hon. Gentleman will examine the context of the answer at which I observe he is now looking, he will find that it refers to the proportion of investment that required Government approval. There is, of course, a large amount of investment which takes place without its coming within the gamut of being over £3 million and, therefore, requiring the application of section 9. It is that reason which has led the hon. Gentleman to misunderstand the situation.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, North-West (Mr. Stern) expressed the hope that any infrastructure costs on new port development at Falmouth would not fall on the taxpayer. The promoters envisage most traffic being trans-shipped by sea or going by rail. They plan to pay for certain improvements to the Falmouth branch railway and, if the development goes ahead, the traffic that it would bring in would be good news for the future of railways in Cornwall.
On roads, the promoters have been told that, in view of the trans-shipment basis of the project, my right hon. Friend would not expect to approve any increased expenditure on highways in the area solely on account of the terminal development. It will be for the Cornwall county council, as highway authority, to decide within its

transport programme and policy the priorities that it sees for any road improvements which might become necessary in the course of time.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, East (Mr. Sayeed) raised the question of pilotage, and asked whether I would deal with this in the course of a few minutes. One thing that I have learnt about pilotage is that one cannot deal with its problems in the course of a few minutes. I therefore hope that the House will forgive me if I go on to the points that were raised by my hon. Friend on the subject of the dock labour scheme. I fear that he was only exposing the growing pressure for change in the scheme, and the growing anxiety about the situation in a number of scheme ports.
The hon. Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mr. Parry), who has tabled a number of questions on the matter, referred to the Mersey Docks and Harbour Company's turn-round from loss to profit. I agree that that has occurred. I take this public opportunity to congratulate the board on its success. I visited the port recently, and was impressed by the work that it is doing. He expressed fears that the needs of north-west industry would not be satisfied if the Falmouth terminal trade went on through to Liverpool. I cannot visualise cargo being landed at Falmouth to be dragged all the way across the country to satisfy needs in the Liverpool and Merseyside area. It is not in the realm of reality to express that fear.
The hon. Member for Bootle said that he did not believe that it was viable for Falmouth to go ahead without attracting trade from Liverpool. I have tried to deal with that point already. The hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Penhaligon) raised a point about Falmouth, which has been raised with me by several other hon. Members, notably my hon. Friend the Member for Falmouth and Camborne (Mr. Mudd). Section 9 is seen by many hon. Members as a protection against imprudent investment. The real danger for future port investment is that it would be artificially distorted by a section 9 authorisation, seen as a sort of royal appointment guaranteeing good product. That is not so. The removal of section 9 means that now promoters of new ports must convince investors —unaided by the spurious aura of Government backing—that the scheme is viable and will pay for itself.
Falmouth is a significant matter that has been considered by the House in the past, and it would not be right for me to raise the whole matter again tonight.

Question put:—

The House divided: Ayes 137, Noes 235.

Division No. 376]
[11.56 pm


AYES


Adams, Allen (Paisley N)
Brown, N. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne E)


Alton, David
Caborn, Richard


Anderson, Donald
Campbell-Savours, Dale


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Canavan, Dennis


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Clark, Dr David (S Shields)


Ashton, Joe
Clarke, Thomas


Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)
Clay, Robert


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Clwyd, Ms Ann


Barnett, Guy
Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S.)


Beckett, Mrs Margaret
Cohen, Harry


Bell, Stuart
Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.


Bennett, A, (Dent'n &amp; Red'sh)
Corbyn, Jeremy


Blair, Anthony
Craigen, J. M.


Boothroyd, Miss Betty
Crowther, Stan


Boyes, Roland
Cunliffe, Lawrence


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Cunningham, Dr John


Brown, Gordon (D'f'mline E)
Davies, Ronald (Caerphilly)


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'ge H'l)






Deakins, Eric
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Dewar, Donald
Martin, Michael


Dobson, Frank
Maxton, John


Dormand, Jack
Meacher, Michael


Douglas, Dick
Meadowcroft, Michael


Dubs, Alfred
Michie, William


Duffy, A. E. P.
Mikardo, Ian


Eadie, Alex
Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)


Eastham, Ken
Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)


Ellis, Raymond
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)


Evans, John (St. Helens N)
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon


Ewing, Harry
O'Brien, William


Fatchett, Derek
O'Neill, Martin


Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
Park, George


Fisher, Mark
Parry, Robert


Flannery, Martin
Patchett, Terry


Forrester, John
Pavitt, Laurie


Foulkes, George
Pendry, Tom


Fraser, J. (Norwood)
Pike, Peter


Golding, John
Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)


Gould, Bryan
Prescott, John


Hamilton, James (M'well N)
Redmond, M.


Harman, Ms Harriet
Rees, Rt Hon M. (Leeds S)


Harrison, Rt Hon Walter
Richardson, Ms Jo


Hart, Rt Hon Dame Judith
Roberts, Allan (Bootle)


Haynes, Frank
Robertson, George


Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)
Rogers, Allan


Home Robertson, John
Rooker, J. W.


Hoyle, Douglas
Ross, Ernest (Dundee W)


Hughes, Dr. Mark (Durham)
Sedgemore, Brian


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Sheerman, Barry


Hughes, Roy (Newport East)
Sheldon, Rt Hon R.


Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)
Silkin, Rt Hon J.


Janner, Hon Greville
Skinner, Dennis


John, Brynmor
Smith, C.(Isl'ton S &amp; F'bury)


Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)
Spearing, Nigel


Kilroy-Silk, Robert
Stott, Roger


Lambie, David
Strang, Gavin


Leighton, Ronald
Straw, Jack


Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Thomas, Dr R. (Carmarthen)


Lewis, Terence (Worsley)
Thompson, J. (Wansbeck)


Litherland, Robert
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Wareing, Robert


Lofthouse, Geoffrey
Welsh, Michael


Loyden, Edward
Wigley, Dafydd


McDonald, Dr Oonagh
Williams, Rt Hon A.


McKelvey, William
Winnick, David


Mackenzie, Rt Hon Gregor
Young, David (Bolton SE)


McNamara, Kevin



McTaggart, Robert
Tellers for the Ayes:


McWilliam, John
Mr. Don Dixon and Mr. Allen McKay 


Madden, Max



Marek, Dr John





NOES


Aitken, Jonathan
Bowden, A. (Brighton K'to'n)


Alexander, Richard
Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)


Amess, David
Boyson, Dr Rhodes


Ancram, Michael
Brandon-Bravo, Martin


Arnold, Tom
Bright, Graham


Ashby, David
Brinton, Tim


Ashdown, Paddy
Brittan, Rt Hon Leon


Aspinwall, Jack
Brooke, Hon Peter


Atkins, Robert (South Ribble)
Brown, M. (Brigg &amp; Cl'thpes)


Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)
Bruce, Malcolm


Baldry, Anthony
Bruinvels, Peter


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Buck, Sir Antony


Batiste, Spencer
Budgen, Nick


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Burt, Alistair


Beith, A. J.
Butcher, John


Bendall, Vivian
Carlile, Alexander (Montg'y)


Benyon, William
Carlisle, John (N Luton)


Berry, Sir Anthony
Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Carttiss, Michael


Biggs-Davison, Sir John
Cash, William


Body, Richard
Chalker, Mrs Lynda


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Chapman, Sydney


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Chope, Christopher


Bottomley, Peter
Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)





Cockeram, Eric
Lang, Ian


Conway, Derek
Latham, Michael


Coombs, Simon
Lawler, Geoffrey


Cope, John
Lawrence, Ivan


Couchman, James
Lee, John (Pendle)


Crouch, David
Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark


Dicks, Terry
Lester, Jim


Dorrell, Stephen
Lilley, Peter


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.
Lloyd, Peter, (Fareham)


Dover, Den
Lord, Michael


Dunn, Robert
McCurley, Mrs Anna


Durant, Tony
Maginnis, Ken


Dykes, Hugh
Major, John


Emery, Sir Peter
Maples, John


Fallon, Michael
Mather, Carol


Farr, John
Mawhinney, Dr Brian


Favell, Anthony
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Fenner, Mrs Peggy
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Fletcher, Alexander
Miscampbell, Norman


Fookes, Miss Janet
Mitchell, David (NW Hants)


Forman, Nigel
Montgomery, Fergus


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Moore, John


Forth, Eric
Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)


Fowler, Rt Hon Norman
Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)


Fox, Marcus
Neubert, Michael


Franks, Cecil
Normanton, Tom


Fraser, Peter (Angus East)
Norris, Steven


Freeman, Roger
Page, John (Harrow W)


Gale, Roger
Parris, Matthew


Galley, Roy
Pawsey, James


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Penhaligon, David


Goodlad, Alastair
Porter, Barry


Gorst, John
Powley, John


Gregory, Conal
Raffan, Keith


Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)
Raison, Rt Hon Timothy


Ground, Patrick
Rees, Rt Hon Peter (Dover)


Grylls, Michael
Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas


Gummer, John Selwyn
Rifkind, Malcolm


Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)
Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Rossi, Sir Hugh


Hampson, Dr Keith
Rowe, Andrew


Hanley, Jeremy
Ryder, Richard


Hannam, John
Sackville, Hon Thomas


Hargreaves, Kenneth
Sayeed, Jonathan


Harvey, Robert
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


Haselhurst, Alan
Shelton, William (Streatham)


Hawkins, C. (High Peak)
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Hayes, J.
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)


Hayhoe, Barney
Shersby, Michael


Hayward, Robert
Silvester, Fred


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Skeet, T. H. H.


Henderson, Barry
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.
Soames, Hon Nicholas


Hind, Kenneth
Speed, Keith


Hirst, Michael
Spencer, Derek


Holland, Sir Philip (Gedling)
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Holt, Richard
Squire, Robin


Hordern, Peter
Stanbrook, Ivor


Howard, Michael
Steen, Anthony


Howarth, Alan (Stratf'd-on-A)
Stern, Michael


Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)
Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)


Howell, Rt Hon D. (G'ldford)
Stevens, Martin (Fulham)


Howells, Geraint
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


Hubbard-Miles, Peter
Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)


Hunt, David (Wirral)
Stradling Thomas, J.


Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)
Sumberg, David


Hunter, Andrew
Taylor, John (Solihull)


Jackson, Robert
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman


Jones, Robert (W Herts)
Temple-Morris, Peter


Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith
Terlezki, Stefan


Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine
Thomas, Rt Hon Peter


Kershaw, Sir Anthony
Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)


Key, Robert
Thorne, Neil (Ilford S)


Kirkwood, Archy
Thornton, Malcolm


Knight, Gregory (Derby N)
Tracey, Richard


Knowles, Michael
Trotter, Neville


Knox, David
Twinn, Dr Ian


Lamont, Norman
van Straubenzee, Sir W.






Vaughan, Sir Gerard
Whitfield, John


Viggers, Peter
Whitney, Raymond


Waddington, David
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Wakeham, Rt Hon John
Winterton, Nicholas


Walden, George
Wolfson, Mark


Walker, Cecil (Belfast N)
Wood, Timothy


Walker, Bill (T'side N)
Woodcock, Michael


Wallace, James
Yeo, Tim


Waller, Gary
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Wardle, C. (Bexhill)
Younger, Rt Hon George


Warren, Kenneth



Watson, John
Tellers for the Noes:


Watts, John
Mr. Douglas Hogg and


Wells, Bowen (Hertford)
 Mr. Tim Sainsbury.


Wells, John (Maidstone)

Question accordingly negatived.

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 79(5) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.).

TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT

That the draft Job Release Act 1977 (Continuation) Order 1984, which was laid before this House on 10 May, be approved. —[Mr. Mather.]

DANGEROUS DRUGS

That the draft Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 (Modification) Order 1984, which was laid before the House on 22 May, be approved. —[Mr. Mather.]

Question agreed to.

EUROPEAN COMMUNITY DOCUMENTS

Motion made, and question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 80(5) (Standing Committee on European Community documents.)

NUCLEAR ENERGY

That this House takes note of European Community Documents Nos. 11753/82 and Addendum 1, 8914/83, 7456/83, 7491/83, and 7937/83; and fully supports appropriate cost effective measures that will help to minimise the Community's dependence on imported oil and encourage the safe, economic and secure development of nuclear power.—[Mr. Mather.]

Question agreed to.

Power Stations (Coal)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Mather.]

Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse: I am grateful for this opportunity to discuss the transportation of coal to the Drax and Eggborough power stations through the town of Knottingley in my constituency. During the day, some of my right hon. and hon. Friends and some Conservative Members have been getting rather excited at the thought of the debate being something to do with the coal strike but, unforutnately, I have had to disappoint them as it is nothing to do with the strike.
I should have thought that it would have been much better, rather than having to detain the House now, if the Minister had felt able to meet me with representatives of West Yorkshire county council when I twice requested him to do so. He saw no useful purpose in doing so, so I had no alternative but to raise the matter now.
In my first letter to the Minister of State, Department of Transport, on 6 March I gave the detailed history of events that have led to the present unsatisfactory circumstances. For the information of the House, I shall present similar information tonight.
In letters, I informed the Minister that both traffic delay and environmental problems at Womersley road level crossing, Knottingley, had given rise to considerable concern for many years. In the mid-1970s, for instance, 120 trains a day used the crossing, of which about seven were MGR trains to and from the Drax and Eggborough power stations. Those train movements meant that, on average, the barriers were closed for 21 per cent. of the time, with the average closure time being two and a half minutes. In that period, about 2,500 vehicles were using Womersley road in a 10-hour day, of which about 25 per cent. were heavy goods vehicles.
The Minister will recall that I have informed him since then of two major issues which have affected the situation. First, following a major public inquiry, planning permission was granted in March 1976 for the development of the Selby coalfield, subject to the planning condition that all coal to the power station was transported by rail. Secondly, in July 1977, the decision was taken to develop the Drax B coal-fired power station.
At that time it was anticipated that the introduction of the second phase of Drax would lead to an increase of 33 per cent. in the number of MGR train movements through Knottingley and that the corresponding increase in closure times, together with the increase in road traffic flows due to new developments south of the railway, would seriously aggravate the already difficult situation at the level crossing. In addition, it was clear that train movemets of the volumes envisaged would considerably increase problems in residential areas adjacent to the rail corridor.
My investigations revealed that a meeting was held in April 1978 between the West Yorkshire county council and the CEGB to discuss the problems at Womersley road and possible solutions. Subsequently, a number of reports on the transportation issues involved were considered by the county council between July 1978 and August 1980. At that time numerous meetings were held and approaches made to other agencies involved. These included the then Minister of Transport, the Secretary of State for Energy


and the chairmen of the British Rail Board, the National Coal Board and the CEGB. All were unable to help with the problems identified at Knottingley.
A major option raised was the provision of a new, more direct link from the Selby coalfield drift mine at Gascoigne wood to the Drax power station, completely avoiding Knottingley. A number of alternative alignments for this link, utilising significant track lengths near Selby, were considered. A later option raised was for a rail bypass to the south of Knottingley avoiding Womersley road and major residential areas.
In August 1980, the county council's transportation committee resolved to share with other agencies the cost of an impartial study, to be undertaken by the institute of transport studies at Leeds university. The other agencies supporting the study were the British Railways Board, the CEGB, the NCB and North Yorkshire county council.
The report of that study found that delays and environmental intrusion resulting from rail traffic would worsen in Knottingley in the period 1980 to 1988, that the most serious effects would be that delays at the level crossing would increase by 50 per cent. and that the percentage of local trips within Knottingley affected by the delays would increase from 31 per cent. to 40 per cent. Further, noise and vibration effects from rail traffic would increase for well over 100 properties. The report concluded, however, that there was no viable alternative to the worsening environmental conditions in Knottingley along the rail route other than re-routing coal trains via Selby or providing a rail bypass at Knottingley.
A recommendation in the study was that the West Yorkshire county council should investigate the possibility of providing a new road over the rail bridge at Womersley road, and a subsequent investigation found that the bridge could not be justified. The reason given was that it would lead to new noise intrusion, would introduce an unwelcome new visual feature, and additional land and property would be required.
The county, however, is currently preparing a cost-benefit analysis for the southern rail bypass of Knottingley. The problem here is with finance, since BR and the NCB have not shown a willingness to assist. The issue has already been raised informally by West Yorkshire county council with the EEC, which has stated that the rail bypass does not meet its criteria and so would not commend itself for transport infrastructure funding.There would appear to be no other likely source of EEC funds.
We are therefore faced with deteriorating conditions in Knottingley, as evidenced by independent studies and significant local concern. There is no sign of any help to improve the situation, which will deteriorate as Drax power station is developed. Eventually the problems will be present 24 hours a day and will continue well into the next century.
I regret that the Secretary of State for Transport has left the Chamber, but the House may recall that in a statement on the Serpell report on 24 October 1983, he referred to the objectives set for chairmen, and said:
This does not rule out the board proposing changes locally, where they make sense …The Government believe that rail freight has strong environmental advantages over road freight, so we want as much freight as possible to go by rail … The board's plan envisages an increase in investment from present levels. I shall support worthwhile investment which relates directly to the financial and business objectives that we have set." —[Official Report, 24 October 1983, Vol. 47, c. 39.]

I should have thought that. BR's income over the next 60 years fell into that category. Given that, I should also have thought that my request for a meeting to discuss the problem would have been received and accepted by the Minister and the Department. I was very disappointed that the Minister thought that a meeting would serve no useful purpose. I was certainly surprised that in his letter to me dated 18 May 1984, the Minister should suggest that the Government
can play no direct part in resolving the issue".
The Government give specific approval for all major capital projects by BR and all transport projects over £1 million promoted by the county council.
I understand that the Government have recently managed to speed up considerably their response time to project requests from BR, and to be fair, I also understand that the Minister has been largely responsible for that improvement. As that has been achieved by good prior consultation between BR and the Department of Transport, the Government will have to be involved at some stage with such a project — and will have to approve it in the end.
Similarly, if a new piece of railway line has to be constructed, a private Bill has to be promoted. Et is inconceivable that this is a matter that would not concern the Minister, the Department of Tranport and the Government. At the very least, departmental non-objection is required, and in practice, approval and support are needed. I am astounded that the Minister feels that this is not a matter for Government and should be left to the county council and British Rail. The Selby mine and Drax power station—the major producers and consumers of coal going through Knottingley—are both of national significance, and both were approved after consideration at highest Government levels. The planning application, accepted by the Secretary of State, specified rail as the method of movement for all coal coming from Selby.
It astounds me that the Minister can now suggest that the Government have no responsibility for the consequence of these decisions—especially as both the mine and the power stations are in North Yorkshire, and thus their rates go to North Yorkshire county council, but the problem is formulated in west Yorkshire.
It is interesting to compare the Minister's hands-off approach to the Department of Transport' attitude to road investment, some 10 million tonnes of coal will be moved from Selby to Drax. If this were to be carried in lorries, a traffic flow of 400 of the heaviest lorries per hour would be generated. The environmental impact of such a flow on a trunk road would understandably trigger the Department of Transport into providing a road bypass for a town such as Knottingley, and the Department of Transport would provide the funding.
Surely the rail network is like the trunk road network—a national and not a local responsibility. I suggest that the Department of Transport should take action to deal with: his environmental problem on rail in the same way that it would deal with a similar environmental nuisance on road—by building a bypass. This is a national responsibility. It means that more than 10 million tonnes of coal a year will be going through Knottingley for the next 60 years, with all the financial income going to British Rail and the National Coal Board. Is it not reasonable that a mere £4 million to £5 million should be provided by the Government to solve what has become an intolerable environmental problem for the town?
I have had meetings with British Rail eastern division officers, local branches of ASLEF and the NUR and West Yorkshire county council, all of whom support this scheme. Some 180 coal trains will be going through the town of Knottingley each year for up to 60 years. They will almost be going through people's back doorsteps, so one can appreciate the great and serious problem facing the town. Some of my constituents already have to put up with the rail depot. We accept it, but it causes problems of noise for those living near. Their environment is heavily affected. So far, British Rail has refused to provide double glazing or a sound barrier such as that for these people.
I hope that, if the Minister cannot give an assurance that he will assist with this great problem, for a mere £4 million to £5 million—which is small compared to the sums spent on the Selby coalfield and the Drax power station—to alleviate this problem over many years, he will at least consider my request and agree to meet me and representatives of the West Yorkshire county council to discuss the matter further.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. David Mitchell): The hon. Member for Pontefract and Castleford (Mr. Lofthouse) explained to the House that he was raising this matter because I had declined his request to receive a deputation. I assure him that no discourtesy was intended to him, but I have no locus in the matter. I would not wish to bring him and a deputation to London for no useful purpose. I shall explain to the House my reason for saying that.
The hon. Gentleman has drawn attention to the kind of inherent conflict between the interests of the different modes of transport which have existed for a very long time but which have recently been exacerbated by the general growth in vehicular traffic and in this case by an increase in railway freight activity. Where level crossings are concerned, there are unfortunately rarely any easy solutions. The hon. Gentleman has explained to the House that there are problems about the level crossing and about the noise and environmental effect on those who live close to the line. He has also pointed out that an increase in the intensity of use of a particular railway line means that people living in close proximity to it will be exposed to noise or vibration more frequently than before.
I have already acknowledged to the hon. Gentleman that it is understandable that some of his constituents do not welcome increased levels of coal traffic on the railway line close to their homes, but it should be understood that it is a situation which is not peculiar to Knottingley. Indeed, I assure the hon. Gentleman that if he sat behind my desk and read my post he would find that there are complaints by people about noise when there is a change in the pattern of rail traffic in any area.
Variations in the patterns of rail traffic, as British Rail responds to the changing needs of its customers, must inevitably lead to alterations in the amount of noise or vibration experienced by people living close to the lines involved. Sometimes the changes lead to a reduction in the levels of disturbance and in others to an increase. I think it would be appropriate for me to remind the House of the procedures available to those who feel that they suffer from disturbance as a result of increased rail operations.

Mr. Lofthouse: Can the Minister tell the House if there is anywhere else in the country that has 180 trains per day and 10 million tonnes of coal per year going directly down the middle of a small town on people's doorsteps? I very much doubt that.

Mr. Mitchell: If the hon. Gentleman will allow me, I shall endeavour to cover the points that he has raised.
Powers are available under part III of the Control of Pollution Act 1974 to control noise from fixed premises including land and, therefore, railways. Action may be taken under the Act by local authorities, and individual occupiers of affected premises through the magistrates courts. For the purposes of part HI of the Act, "noise" includes vibration.
Under section 58 of the Act, once a local authority is satisfied that a noise amounting to a statutory nuisance exists, or is likely to occur or recur, it may serve on the person responsible a notice, which is enforceable in the magistrates court, requiring the abatement of the noise or prohibiting or restricting its occurrence or recurrence. In practice, the local authority will very often discuss the matter informally with the person responsible for the noise to see whether a satisfactory arrangement can be arrived at without the need to resort to legal action.
Under section 59 of the Control of Pollution Act, it is also open to an individual who is bothered by noise affecting his home to complain direct to the magistrates court, which has the power to make and enforce an order with similar effect to that of a local authority's notice, once it is satisfied that noise amounting to a statutory nuisance exists, or is likely to recur. Clearly, that applies in this case. However, in fairness to the House, I should point out that it is a defence in proceedings under the Act relating to noise caused in the course of a trade or business to prove that the "best practicable means" has been taken to prevent, or counteract the effect of, the noise. However, because BR is a statutory undertaker the test of the defence of "best practicable means" will always apply only so far as is compatible with the duties imposed on the railway.
In the case of the railway line in the vicinity of Womersley Road, Knottingley, I understand that the total of train movements is in the region of 20 per cent. above that of 10 years ago. It is the concern over this measure of increase which has led the West Yorkshire county council to look at ways of alleviating the problems to which such growth can give rise.
I am well aware, from correspondence that has passed between the hon. Member and myself, that one solution proposed was to replace the level crossing at Womersley Road with a road bridge over the railway. However, it is now being suggested that the railway should be rerouted to the south of Knottingley. I have to say, though, that such a proposal must be considered in the light of the practical operating constraints acting on British Rail. Even if the coal trains which currently use Womersley Road level crossing were to be diverted on to a new line bypassing Knottingley, the existing line would have to continue to handle traffic to the wagon repair yard and motive power depot, and also to a number of sidings, works and warehouses in the vicinity of Knottingley.
Although the proposal could well result in a reduction of rail traffic on the line crossing Womersley Road, it would not eliminate it altogether. The elimination of coal traffic would certainly reduce the level crossing delays, and at the same time bring about a reduction in


environmental disturbance to those people living close by the existing railway line. But British Rail would still be committed to maintaining the existing line, and it would have the considerable expense of building and maintaining a new line.
As the hon. Gentleman said, there were 120 trains a day in 1975, which is a considerable number, although much below the level of traffic on a main line. In the past nine years, that figure has increased by 25 trains a day. I am not unsympathetic, but the problem is very familiar to many city dwellers who live near to railway lines and who have far greater volumes of traffic to contend with.
The arguments that have been put forward in favour of making resources available from national funds to ease these local problems by building a new bypass line misunderstand the real position. Let me remind the House of relevant points in the framework of our policy for the railways. These principally revolve around value for money and efficiency. We must bear that in mind very carefully tonight. Only last year, in its corporate plan, British Rail set itself a series of important objectives, backed up by action plans by which they were to be achieved. Its guiding principle was to run an efficient railway, providing its customers with good value for money, while at the same time reducing its call on public funds.
With regard to the freight sector, which BR is determined to run as a commercial business, it is of course paramount that rates and charges should be as competitive as possible if traffic is to be secured from rivals. Reducing costs obviously plays an essential role in that. Let us make no mistake about it; BR faces severe competition for its freight traffic, particularly from road haulage.

Mr. Lofthouse: British Rail does not compete on this line, because the planning conditions for Selby coalfield are based on the coal being moved by rail. So, British Rail does not face competition in that area.

Mr. Mitchell: British Rail faces fierce competition for freight throughout its freight network, although not on this route because of the planning consent to which the hon. Gentleman referred. However, it is in direct competition with roads throughout its freight network, apart from on this section.
There is not a monopoly for the carriage of freight by rail. British Rail has to compete successfully with other hauliers. The freight managers of British Rail have to consider costs and expenditure throughout the system, including the town where the hon. Gentleman lives, in order to keep its expenditure down and to be able to compete successfully. If it does not do so, costs will rise, British Rail will not be able to compete successfully and

more freight will go in juggernauts through our villages and towns, on unsuitable roads. The Government are trying to get freight shifted on to the railways. It can be shifted successfully on to the railways—we are using section 8 grants generously to try to achieve that—only if the railways are competitive. They cannot be competitive if they incur expenditure on building new lines that duplicate existing ones.
It makes obvious sense for bulk traffic, such as coal, to be carried by rail, provided that the charges for that transport make economic sense for British Rail's customers. The National Coal Board and the Central Electricity Generating Board and their customers want the lowest possible transport charges if their costs are lo be kept to a minimum. If that cannot be achieved, the likelihood is that jobs in those industries, as well as on the railways, will be put at risk. The House will agree that the railways offer by far the best option for the transport of coal, and no hon. Member would wish to see the alternative — a vast increase in the amount carried by road.
The Government have no wish to see that. Indeed, we are fully conscious of the great environmental benefits that can be obtained by removing heavy lorries from unsuitable roads. As the House will know, we make available section 8 grants with that in mind.
The hon. Gentleman said that it was for me to decide on investment. There is a misunderstanding here, which is important to the issue in front of us. British Rail proposes investment, and I and the Department vet those proposals and approve or disapprove them. It proposes, and I dispose. The initiative does not rest with me, but with British Rail, which is why the hon. Gentleman should make his representations to it, not to me. If that results in British Rail coming forward and saying that it wishes to have investment involving expenditure on a bypass at the hon. Gentleman's town, that would come to me for consideration and approval
At that point I should be happy to receive the hon. Gentleman and any deputation he may care to bring. However, it would be wrong for me to mislead him and for the deputation to travel all the way to London to see me when I have no locus in the matter. That was why —it was no discourtesy to him, his constituents or those concerned—that I suggested that it would not be helpful for me to receive the deptutation that he had in mind ——

The Question having been proposed after Ten o'clock and the debate having continued for half an hour, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at twenty-three minutes to One o'clock.